Talk:Doctor Who specials (2023)

Article Title

Should this page be called "Doctor Who (2023 Specials)"? We can assume its not three specials on the day 23 November 2023, but rather spread out through the year with one most likely falling on the actual anniversary (Aricmfergie (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC))

It's an article that discusses the 60th anniversary of Doctor Who, so it's at a title for the "60th anniversary". It will likely be moved in the future elsewhere (title TBD) at a later date when we know more. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright that makes sense. Thanks! (Aricmfergie (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that we know that all three specials will air in 2023 (November, specifically), I would actually agree with moving it to Doctor Who (2023 specials), to be in line with Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials), Doctor Who (2013 specials) and Doctor Who (2022 specials). -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this as well, but I'm in two minds. On the one hand, "2023 specials" is consistent with the previous examples you linked; on the other hand, "60th anniversary specials" still makes sense because the entire set of specials celebrates the 60th (something that can't be said about the three previous examples). I think I'm leaning towards the former simply because of consistency, but I'm not opposed to the latter since it's the first of its kind. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the recent move, as it was done without agreement while this discussion is in place. I'd also agree with the format, because per WP:TVSEASON, A consistent naming scheme should be used for all season articles of a TV show: if one season is named something special, this should be noted through redirects and in the article's WP:LEAD, but the article should be named in the same fashion as the other season pages. This is also why The Key to Time and The Trial of a Time Lord are under Season # titles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That guideline basically settles it for me—consistency is key, so "2023 specials" is the appropriate title. Good point with the Key to Time/Trial of a Time Lord comparison, too. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it does apply to the 2013 specials, as they celebrated the 50th aniversary Cal3000000 (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Article

Is this page even ready to be published yet? (Aricmfergie (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC))

Yes, it meets WP:NFTV and has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#60th Anniversary / Series 14. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Specials?

This article seems to have been very rushed into. Nowhere has it been confirmed that the 60th anniversary will be 3 specials, even if there has been 3 directors announced. There is also varying accounts of Ncuti Gatwa being on set filming so this could tie into the start of Series 14.

Why has this article been published when there is no current idea of the 60th Anniversary's format? Panda815 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is based solely on the content of reliable sources, multiple sources of which confirm the three specials. Do you have any sources of Gatwa being on set for the 60th anniversary filming? (Making sure that it's separate from Series 14's filming, which is set to begin in November.) If so, by all means, add it to the article. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t dispute that reliable sources have gone into the building of this article. However, most of these sources are in the form of news articles which would be happy to generalise and assume three specials etc.

What I mean is that there is no confirmation of this by the BBC, Doctor Who itself or any of the people responsible for running the 60th anniversary period of the programme.

When it was announced that Jodie Whittaker would be leaving in the trio of 2022 specials, the BBC had a press release and Doctor Who socials announced it. This has not happened for 60th, rather the announcement of Davies returning had the words “60th anniversary and series beyond” drawing more attention to series than anything by else.

In fact, I doubt you can find any similarities between the announcing and beginnings of the Doctor Who 2022 Specials and the so called 60th anniversary specials. Panda815 (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:VNT is the relevant essay here. How the 2022 specials were announced is irrelevant. If the BBC come forth after the specials have concluded in October to then formally announce how the 60th anniversary will be laid out, then we can update it. However, the article completely meets the notability and sourcing policies for its content as it stands. Relying solely on the BBC for sources for this article is not how Wikipedia creates its articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is the page titled the way it is? Was there a consensus or just 1 person taking matters into their own hands? The 2013 stuff is “Doctor Who (2013 specials)”, not “Doctor Who (50th anniversary)”. TR-BT (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@TR-BT Yes, the link to the relevant discussion is in the discussion above this one. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21, I'm not saying that it should rely only on the BBC. I was giving the BBC and the DW socials as an example of what would be official and usable information. Other examples could include Russell T Davies or any of the cast involved giving information in interviews or official publications like Doctor Who Magazine getting an exclusive.

The sources in this article say things such as "Davies didn’t contradict host Alex Jones when she said, "Doctor Who 60th anniversary next year, there’s going to loads of specials, I imagine."

That doesn't confirm that it is three specials, it just says that Davies didn't make any comment on it, therefore not confirming three specials.

The source about Rachel Talalay refers to the 60th as being one single special and that Gatwa will debut in the special, contradicting the three specials in this article.

That's just a bit of picking of some of the sources in the article to show you that the sources here are only a springboard for those adding them to make assumptions. Panda815 (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

And then the other sources make clear references to three specials, including the director of the third. You're nitpicking and ignoring the valid sources here, but given the ambiguity of the situation so early on, that's why the article states that there will be "up to three" specials. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Number Of Specials

According to Doctor Who Magazine there are four specials next year not three. MarvelMovieFan (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Quote? -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You're quite correct, actually. RTD is quoted as saying I sit here with ten scripts in front of me (four Specials and six episodes of the New Series, so far [...]). Given that it's reliably sourced that there are three specials for the 60th, and then concerning Gatwa, his first episode will aired over the festive period and Series 14 will premiere in 2024, the fourth special is likely Gatwa's premiere episode. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

All but confirmed in [1], but I don't think there's much need to add an episode about it until knowledge about it is released. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

We have a source stating that series 14 won't start until 2024 and a separate source stating that Gatwa's first episode will air over the festive period in 2023. That confirms a fourth separate special outside of the 60th specials. However, given the production schedules (filming, casting, etc.) it seems that information on the festive special would be better suited in the series 14 [draft] article for the time being. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is "The Church on Ruby Road" Christmas 2023 special (https://cultbox.co.uk/news/headlines/doctor-who-christmas-special-air-date-and-title-revealed) introducing the 16th Doctor not listed as a 2023 special? Just because it's part of the next series? Is it OK for me to add it? WordwizardW (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Production wise it was filmed with the fourteenth series and is listed there. TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, you mean the 15th Doctor. But yes, the above reason explains it - it was part of the S14 production. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It's still a 2023 special, and should be listed as such.WordwizardW (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

By that logic "A Christmas Carol" should be listed with the 2008-2010 specials despite being produced as part of the sixth series and being split by the fifth series, just because it was a 2010 special. Production order is the better precedent to stick with. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That's why we have the hatnote at the top of the article. This article is specifically for the 60th anniversary specials, of which the Christmas Special is not a part of. (This article was orignally titled Doctor Who (60th anniversary) to make this clear, but then moved to be in line with articles such as Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials), Doctor Who (2013 specials) and Doctor Who (2022 specials); that does not change what the context of the article is for.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The BBC is listing Church On Ruby Road as part of "Season 1" after the "60TH ANNIVERSARY SPECIALS" (aka 2023 specials) Etron81 (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Wilfred Mott

Creating a discussion here to prevent an edit war with @Alex21.

I've removed the statement that Bernard Cribbins will reprise his role as Wilfred Mott and it has since been reverted and included again. Jacqueline Wilson and Karl Collins were both announced to be reprising their roles yesterday and this would have been the appropriate place to announce same for Cribbins, but this did not happen.

It claims to have been reliably sourced that Cribbins is returning, despite no inclusion yesterday. The source used admits to creating their article off a fake tweet but then finding real filming videos and photos in legitimate tweets. That tells us that yes, Bernard Cribbins was on set but doesn't mean he is reprising his role. He may well have done some filming but then was cut out. Or he couldn't complete the role before his death and therefore had to be removed entirely.

The point is there is no way to confidently say that Cribbins is in it, not even using the source that has been used.

Therefore would anyone object to me once again removing the Cribbins line from the article?

Panda815 (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Plenty of RS have outright stated he is going to be in the specials as Mott, including [2]. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

What? Where in that source does it say Wilfred Mott is in the specials? All I can see that's even remotely relevant is that Cribbins had been filming for it. Panda815 (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Cribbins had just been filming for the show's 60th anniversary as Donna Noble's grandfather Wilfred Mott shortly before his death. I have no idea how you could read that as anything other than being the case. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I literally addressed anything like that sentence in my original discussion point.

Here's the direct quote from my bit at the top:

"filming videos and photos in legitimate tweets. That tells us that yes, Bernard Cribbins was on set but doesn't mean he is reprising his role. He may well have done some filming but then was cut out. Or he couldn't complete the role before his death and therefore had to be removed entirely."

Doesn't that show you how uninformative the sentence you've highlighted is?

Panda815 (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The source (plus many others) say that he is playing Mott. That is all that is required for inclusion. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

No they don't. That's the whole discussion we're having, that none of the sources actually give us anything conclusive. Panda815 (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

"He wasn't in the press release yesterday so he can't be in the episodes" is the most textbook original research answer I've ever heart. So has "he may be cut out". What's your source for that? Do you have anything to back it up? Or is it just your personal thoughts? You have no sources to back this up, and yet we have sources to prove that Cribbins was on set filming as his character. (Also, indent your replies properly.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying I think he was cut out. I've given it as just one possibility to illustrate that all of the sources used aren't helpful in any way. I could list others if needed. Either way I'm yet to hear from anyone about why they think sources saying Cribbins was on set filming in character is enough to say he's in it. The fact that he wasn't announced yesterday disables us from making the normal assumption that because he was filming he is in it. Panda815 (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, yesterday's press release is irrelevant in this discussion. Are you saying there will be no other characters in these specials, because none of them were announced in the press release? If that's your main issue with the sentence, reword the sentence to state that Cribbins was seen filming on set. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

You have a misunderstanding of how this works. I have pointed to a source saying that he is playing this character. To remove this, you would need a source stating that this information isn't true. Just saying that it isn't included in another source is not good enough. none of the sources actually give us anything conclusive - except I've given you something completely concrete saying this. It says Cribbins will play Mott. There's no room for wiggle room. Please drop the stick. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, Alex21, I'm mentioning the press release because it is particularly sensitive to Wilfred Mott due to the nature of its content. I don't think it's the be all and end all source. Lee Vilenski what I mean by nothing concrete is that it doesn't say that Mott will appear, just that Cribbins filmed for it. I've made it clear why just that he filmed for it isn't enough. The wiggle room is in the vagueness of the statement made in the source. Panda815 (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

You think it's definitive. Again, that's your personal opinion. And it's your personal opinion on the filming. Do sources state that he's returning as his character? Yes. Then that's not for you to debate. Drop the stick. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

For quite possibly the billionth time, my entire argument is that the sources don't state that Cribbins will appear as Mott, yet you keep pushing that they do. I don't know how you managed to not get that from everything I've written. The fact that you don't seem to understand that I'm saying that is what means I have to keep replying. Panda815 (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe your argument isn't making the point you think it's making. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? - I genuinely don't understand, could you please explain?

Also you are the reason that I can’t drop the stick as I said above so there’s no use repeating that. If you and I were on the same page and properly understood one another then we'd probably reach a consensus one way or the other anyway. Panda815 (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

We still haven't reached a consensus here. If you don't have any more objections that I haven't addressed then I think it would be fair for me to remove the Cribbins line. Panda815 (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I've gotta side with Alex and Lee here, more than enough reliable sources exist here with claims to support the inclusion of Cribbins. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Panda815 Given the above, there is now a clear consensus against your opinion. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that’s fine - I won’t remove the sentence. That’s a fair consensus!

I’m really trying not to badger the point here but for my own understanding and so that I don’t make the same mistake twice, @TheDoctorWho how come you conclude the sources are reliable despite my reasoning that the sources don’t actually state Mott is appearing? Panda815 (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Just realised when rereading this that the question "how come you conclude the sources are reliable despite my reasoning that the sources don’t actually state Mott is appearing?" can be extended to @Alex21 and @Lee Vilenski as well as @TheDoctorWho because those two never did actually answer that question through their many comments on this page. Once again I'm no longer interested in removing the sentence in the article, due to consensus being reached, I'm just hoping your answers and reasoning will help me to not have this issue ever again. Panda815 (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm choosing to respond here rather than my talk page, as this is the appropriate place for the discussion. As for the fact that it's been nearly two weeks since the last message here I'm beginning to agree with Alex in thinking that you can't drop the stick after a consensus has clearly been reached. We're all reading the same sources here; three of us have come to the conclusion that the information contained within them are adequate enough to state that Cribbins is appearing, while you believe otherwise.

Despite their efforts to explain the answer to the same question that you extended to me, multiple times in a lengthy conversation, you have refused to accept any of their responses as a sufficient response to your inquiry. That leads me to believe that I could get into the same debate with you and we would right back here in another two weeks.

Further, I have nothing else to explain. I read all the sources provided, and my interpretation of those is that Cribbins is appearing. Once again you have the access to the same sources I have. If your interpretation of said sources is completely different, that is your right. It is however, not okay to continue making this conversation a dead end circle after a consensus has been reached. You said yourself that there has been a fair consensus so there should be no need to continue asking questions to which you have already received answers to.

You may want to give WP:SECONDARY another read through, specifically the part that states Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. These source are making an evaluative claim that Mott is appearing based on the fact that he was seen filming, therefore making the information suitable enough for inclusion in this article. If you need a source specifically stating this you may want to check out some of these: "Doctor Who's Bernard Cribbins looks set for return as he's seen filming", "Unfortunately, the upcoming 60th anniversary of Doctor Who will serve as one of Bernard Cribbins final acting roles, as he died after filming his scenes." "we heard about his death just weeks after discovering Cribbins was taking part in the 60th anniversary specials". TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I was not implying that it should continue on your talk page, the message on your talk page was simply a reminder of this discussion page, not a prompt to continue elsewhere. Thank you for pointing to this and this source, they definitively say that Mott is back which is what I was after. The reason that I was not content with the answers I was getting is because with every answer I was given, I could apply the same logic I'd had throughout (mainly consisting of me saying he's filming isn't enough and them saying the sources say he's in it, when actually they only say he's filming) in order to dispute it. They didn't address me saying that the sources don't say that Mott is in it and kept pushing that they did say that. Nor did they say it was open to interpretation, they said that it was definitely what they said it was and I could not possibly interpret the way I did and be correct. You however, have not done that and addressed the issue head on, both with the definitive sources and the explanation about the evaluative claim so thanks for that. As for why I'm still asking when I've acknowledged that the consensus has been made, I succinctly made that clear in this one sentence above: "I'm no longer interested in removing the sentence in the article, due to consensus being reached, I'm just hoping your answers and reasoning will help me to not have this issue ever again." Once again thanks for finally giving me some clarity there. Panda815 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Tenth or Fourteenth?

Look, as far as I'm concerned, if it's a previous actor, then it is that SPECIFIC previous version of the Doctor. It's the Tenth Doctor, and that's that! Visokor (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

That may well be the case and your right that one face shouldn't have multiple regenerations. However, all official announcements etc. say he is the Fourteenth. Have you read this on the BBC website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/articles/2022/doctor-who-60th-anniversary-specials-everything-we-know ?

If the BBC refers to him as fourteenth then so must we. Panda815 (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Not that it matters much, but if you put the subtitles onto "The Giggle" after Gatwa emerges they call him "Tenth Doctor". In all fairness this could be a mistake if not something more subtle. Providing it isn't fixed by now. Maxcardun (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Episode redirects

1. The Star Beast (Doctor Who)
2. Wild Blue Yonder (Doctor Who)
3. The Giggle

-- Alex_21 _TALK 21:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft articles at:

1. Draft:The Star Beast (Doctor Who)
2. Draft:Wild Blue Yonder (Doctor Who)
3. Draft:The Giggle

-- Alex_21 _TALK 01:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Disney+

Is Doctor Who still scheduled to air on Disney+? Their support doesn't know anything about the cooperation ("If we would show it, it would be on the "coming soon" page"). All announcements are from 2022. Is it confirmed that with a Disney+ subscription people will be able to watch it? 2003:CB:BF33:8500:9158:F471:70AE:77AB (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is reliably sourced that the series will internationally release on Disney+, that has not changed. -- Alex_21 _TALK 19:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

What is the source? I talked to two people at Disney+, who dug deep into their sources trying to find it, and were unable to. It seems odd that Disney+ wouldn't try to promote it (unless they were waiting for confirmed dates, or for their Nov 1 subscription price raise). 2003:CB:BF33:8500:9158:F471:70AE:77AB (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hayes, Dade (25 October 2022). "'Doctor Who' Moves To Disney+ Outside UK And Ireland Via BBC-Disney Branded Television Partnership". Deadline. Archived from the original on 25 October 2022. Retrieved 26 October 2022. DonQuixote (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

See also this press release. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This Instagram post from Disney+ is far more recent, dated April 2023. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Tales of the TARDIS redirect

For some reason the Tales of the TARDIS article was deleted, and it now redirects here.

Why? It's a different show, which was released alongside the 60th anniversary celebrations of which the specials are just a part. All information in that article is lost and relegated to a single line mentioning it happened in this one. DoorOpensCloses (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It's probably because there was hardly any information in that article and there wasn't any significant coverage in the media. DonQuixote (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@DonQuixote Because the article consisted of a lead and a table, and that's it - that's not enough to warrant a separate article, thus it wasn't deleted, it was move to the draft space. You can expand upon the article at Draft:Tales of the TARDIS, if you like. -- Alex_21 _TALK 19:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Overnight Ratings

The article has a section that specifies the "overnight ratings" for the episode (5 million viewers) but doesn't specify whether this is limited to the UK or also includes people worldwide who watched it on Disney+ overnight. I would guess it is the UK rating, but this ought to be made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.207.46 (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Wild Blue Yonder

Could someone create a seperate Wild Blue Yonder page? 2A00:23C7:6989:2701:6DBB:7C39:7900:BB62 (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Wild Blue Yonder (Doctor Who). Indagate (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Why hasn’t this draft been published by now? Can anyone with the ability to do so please publish it?

Panda815 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel it needs slightly more work to be notable; this was how "The Star Beast" article looked right before it was moved. We need to make sure that articles have decent episode-specific non-plot content to be notable, instead of just having the article because the episode aired. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Foxx247 Please see the above. I see you tried to move the article to the Wikipedia namespace instead of the Main namespace. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Wild Blue Yonder was the third episode shot, while The Giggle was the second episode shot

https://twitter.com/rtalalay/status/1729528265055101252 According to Rachel Talalay on Twitter, the blocks for the episodes are as follows: 1 - The Star Beast, 2 - The Giggle, 3 - Wild Blue Yonder. Also I believe Destination: Skaro could be just considered 'X' as it was filmed nearly a year after The Star Beast and is only a minisode. -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) 01:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Added -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The Giggle

Where's the page for The Giggle? 2A00:23C7:6989:2701:7D09:2C68:3125:A28F (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It's being worked on...or you can start your own in your sandbox. DonQuixote (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:The Giggle -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Not posthumous

Bernard Cribbins did not "posthumously reprise his role"; he was alive when he did so. Please let's not have this restored a third time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Upon the release of "Wild Blue Yonder", was Bernard Cribbins alive? Note that this section regards solely the appearance of the actor in the episode, not the filming or production of the episode, as that is covered later in the article. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's a secondary source (which, of course, Wikipedia bases its content off of) that supports such terminology. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The source refers to a "a posthumous appearance", not to the impossible "posthumously reprise his role". No source supports abusing the English language in such fashion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

There, problem solved, easy for the both of us, and far better than just slapping a haphazard set of parenthesis in the middle of a sentence. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who (2023 specials)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 00:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I will be preforming this review I hope it passes.

Immediate failure

1. It's pretty close to reaching all five criteria.
2. [3] Earwig Doesnt flag anything just a few quotes which have to be verbatim.
3. No maintenance tags.
4. Page is currently stable, no persistent vandalism.
5. This is the first GA review ✓ Pass

Good Article

Well-written

There has been a recently added maintence tag to the reception section. I innitallied overlooked this, but now I see this issue the section is two sentence long and should be expanded on.

Article has a problem with MOS:DUPLINK.

 Done

:As the specials were released onto Disney+ around the same time as they were on BBC One shouldnt Disney Plus be listed in the infobox.

Verifiable

What is your case on Doctor Who News?

What is your case on Cult Box?

Both of them seem to be fansites. There are a few replacements for the information they provide.

I have randomly selected sources 67, 52 and 125 for a spot check. (based on this revision [4])

Spotchecks

REF 67

Claim:

The new logo was revealed on 25 October 2022, in conjunction with the announcement that the specials would premiere on Disney+ outside the UK and Ireland.

Source:

[5]

Proven by source

It discusss the logo and release date.

REF 52

Claim:

Due to failing health, Cribbins' role as Wilfred Mott was reduced, however, he was able to film one last appearance for the ending of "Wild Blue Yonder", his final performance before his death on 27 July 2022, one day after production for the specials wrapped.

Source:

[6]

Proven by source

It does confirm that he began filming

Backed up by other sources

It was paired with a another source. [7]

======REF 125======
Claim: The total veiwers of the specials were 7.61, 7.14, and 6.85 million.
Source:

[8]

Proven by source: You have to specificly select the timeframe you want to see but it is true Source removed I will check another

The source for destinaition Skarro is a instagram post that should be replaced by a secondary source two of which are here of these [9] [10]

REF 71

Claim:

On 7 March 2023, it was announced that Tennant, who was the main presenter of Comic Relief 2023, would appear during a sketch in the telethon in the Fourteenth Doctor's costume to promote the specials.

Source:

[11]

Proven by source

It does talk about his then upcoming role

For Destination Skaro and the bedtime story the runtime is listed. Is there a source for that?

Looking at Doctor Who TV seems to be a fansite without great credentials other than being around for a while

"Nitpick

As of [[12]] citation 33 is listed as being from bigfinish.com as opposed to be to my knowledge consistant formating isnt required for a GA its an easy fix. This is also an issue with ref 102. Those and the Penguin ones at the end are the only few with this formating

Broad in coverage

The plot summaries are all 160-180 words, all of them are under the 200 word limit set by MOS:TV.

:There are various sections which feel like they are just covering Doctor Who in 2023 and not specificly the specials. Could you explain the relevence of these?

"Multiplatform story" covers Dooms day, not really related to the specials

"Tales of the TARDIS" is its own series its said right in the top of the paragraph.

"Doctor Who: Unleashed" has its own page which is linked there.

✓ Pass

Neutral

Its seems unbiased nothing overly prasises it nor critizes it,

✓ Pass

Stable

No edit wars nor large scale arguments recently.

✓ Pass

Illustrated

The article uses three images.

1. The DVD box art (free use): Standered use with television articles.
2. Image of David Tennant and Catherine Tate (commons) The duo lead the specials so makes sense why they are there.
3. Image of Russle T. Davies (commons) he wrote the specicals to makes sense.

✓ Pass

OVERALL

I am going to concatenate all of my responses here, instead of replying above individually, as this is a very uniquely laid-out GA; I've never seen it before.

• My position on Doctor Who News and CultBox remain the same, as you know.
• This article covers the 2023 specials and the 60th anniversary as a whole, exactly how Doctor Who (2013 specials) covers the 2013 specials and the 50th anniversary as a whole, hence the inclusion of content such as Doom's Day, Tales of the TARDIS and Doctor Who: Unleashed, the latter of which was announced to be beginning with the 60th anniversary specials..

-- Alex_21 _TALK 08:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Second point understandable. As for the first part I do know your stance but why is it relaible other than it has been used in the past. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you intend to pass/fail the GA nomination solely based on those two references? I'd like to know before I proceed. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I dont intend to pass/fail the review based on thosse two sites which are used multiple times. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful. Then are there any other concerns that need to be addressed within this article? Thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I just want your justification for them being there Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove them. If they were truly unreliable, they would not have passed the GA nominations of 13 other Doctor Who season articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Start an RFC form a clear consensus. Then I'll shut up about it and we can all be fine. Otherwise I'm going to continue the reveiw. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do continue the review. (Also, typo?) -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant Are you intending to continue adjusting the article for GA even while you're assessing the article yourself? -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You wernt replying Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The layout of this review is extremely confusing, and your only major notices were a bunch of passes, the one maintenance tag, and the recommended updating of the "Destination: Skaro" source, which doesn't even correlate to the edit you made. The recommended timeline for fixes after a complete review is seven days; performing the GA edits as the reviewer based on a lack of reply within a day or two makes me curious as to the situation here. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll proceed with article fixes today. To answer your latest question, no, this is a BBC production, Disney+ simply internationally distribute the series. This differentiation should be known by an experienced Television WikiProject editor. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't talk about who produced it in the info box. Just where it released which was my concern. I understand that it's a BBC production Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Per {{Infobox television season}} documentation, concerning the |network= parameter, The original network on which the season has appeared. Do not add foreign broadcasters here. Use links if articles are available. This is the widely-accepted consensus of WP:TV. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Making a list of edits to fix here, as the above layout is far too confusing and spread-out to keep track of.

• Reception expansion
• "Destination: Skaro" sources [13] [14]
• Formatting of refs 33, 102, Penguin cites [15]

Concerning the runtime of the minisodes, no, sources are not included for those, they are supported by the primary sources of the minisodes themselves, exactly the same as how the main episodes are the primary sources to support the episode titles and credits.

Also, how does this article have issues with MOS:DUPLINK? -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

If the DUPLINKS question concerns multiple of the same link over the whole article, please note that DUPLINK was updated last year, and now states a link may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as [...] at the first occurrence in a section. That means, links can be repeated in different sections. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant I see you tagged the DUPLINK issue as done; did you take note of the above notice, showing that there was no duplicate link issue at all? -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Well Rhain took care of it there was a dupe link issue if be a minor one Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Kindly note, I haven't forgotten about this, I will continue it as soon as possible; I've simply returned to fulltime work this week for the first time this year and will endeavour to finish this nomination in my available time. Thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Cool I'll leave it on hold Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Reception expansion  Doing...
• "Destination: Skaro" sources  Done
• Formatting of refs 33, 102, Penguin cites  Done

-- Alex_21 _TALK 03:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll be continuing/completing the reception expansion over this weekend. Thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

So given that that the slandered time for an article to be on hold is seven days and you have had 12 if you dont get this done soon the article will fail. You also haven't provided solid reasoning as to why the are allowed. I see weak reason for Doctor Who News but nothing for cult box other than "it has historically been used". I give you until the end of the day to respond or else I have to fail it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I said I'm getting around to it; the seven days is by no means a concrete deadline. Apologies that my real-life commitments are more important. Can you please repeat your above statement? The sentence as to why the are allowed makes no gramatically sense; I cannot make sense of your comments. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Let the recently added work towards the critical reception be noted. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant Hi again. Thanks for passing the review. Please be sure to follow WP:GAN/I#PASS in full. Thank you. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Production Order / Bernard Cribbins Appearance

In the "Wild Blue Yonder" episode article it states "In interviews, both Tennant and Davies said that more had been written for Cribbins' Wilfred, but his appearance in the episode was all that he had been able to film, as he became too ill to continue and died shortly thereafter" (which is unsourced in that article). This implies that he filmed his appearance for WBY, and had more written (which would have been for "The Giggle") but was "too ill to continue." How is this possible if The Giggle was filmed before WBY? Wouldn't it have been the other way 'round? He would've filmed his scenes for The Giggle and then have been too ill to continue into WBY. I understand this is partially original research, given the source for the production order, but I'm questioning the accuracy. The shooting script for "The Giggle" does confirm that Cribbins had dialogue written. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

There's enough fan photos online from filming, that we know the London scenes for Wild Blue Yonder were shot with The Giggle; that's somewhat anecdotal - but I don't think there's anything to worry about. Personally I've wondered if the London scenes at the end of Wild Blue Yonder were originally meant to be part of the next episodes, and found there way from one episode to another during the editing process; but that's not for discussion here. Nfitz (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant to reply to myself a few weeks ago. Production order is confirmed by Doctor Who Unleashed so it's possible what you said is correct. Unleashed matches the broadcast order though, so the scenes shown in Unleashed with Cribbins are in the Wild Blue Yonder-related episode. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)