Talk:Thirteenth Doctor

Wikidata entry

Once this page goes live, please link to the following Wikidata page: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q33085422

Time to take this live

This draft clearly meets qualifications for a mainspace article, and given the attention in the news, many people are interested in the subject. It does not need to be "finished" (whatever that could mean for a Wikipedia article) to be in mainspace. Let's cut it loose and continue to edit it in the article space. In the meantime, Wikipedia's readers' needs are going unmet. TJRC (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, TJRC. This draft looks wonderful. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. I asked AlexTheWhovian for his input a few days ago; he hasn't replied yet. Sceptre (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, completely forgot. I think this warrants more discussion, on how she hasn't premiered and the amount of content. For example, with the infobox, "Series 11 (2018)" would need to be removed per CRYSTAL, "0 stories (0 episodes)" is redundant, and it shouldn't be added to the Twelfth Doctor article yet as she has not yet succeeded him - this leaves an infobox with two rows of information. We also don't have an official photo of her in her actual costume. Some of the content is also unnecessary - especially the second and third paragraphs of the Reception section, and now that we have an official announcement, the speculation of other actors is unnecessary, and also every woman actor who was ever considered for the role. -- Alex^TW 14:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think the information, especially in the casting section re: previous actresses considered for the role, is entirely relevant. More real-life context is always good on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I posted that this content was unnecessary almost twenty-four hours ago, to no opposition. Just because it can be added, doesn't mean it should: see WP:TOOMUCH, and take a good read of it. It's cruft, fluff, unnecessary detail added in a failed attempt to make it look larger than it actually is. See the articles for previous Doctors - only the favourites are listed, not every Tom, Dick and Harry - why should this article be any different? How does previous actresses that were only considered for the role affect either Whittaker or the Thirteenth Doctor? They don't relate whatsoever, as it had no effect on the show at all, and the articles for previous Doctors should be used as a guideline for this one as well. The "Casting" section is meant to detail the casting of Whittaker as the Thirteenth Doctor; however, only the last paragraph out of six actually does this, the rest does off on a tangent. Concerning the reception section, are the paragraphs for LGBT news site PinkNews and the tabloid The Sun really necessary? The former details a satirical response that is in no way a valid reception worth including, whereas the latter is not reception at all. Also, thanks for reverting my whole edit, such as the addition of notes and the unnecessary "0 stories (0 episodes)", greatly appreciated. -- Alex^TW 12:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be unwise to lecture me about how to write Wikipedia articles, you know. WP:TOOMUCH is meant to stop silly lists of every planet in the Star Wars galaxy, not set a limit on encyclopaedic content. The only article limits, really, are what the server can handle. Talking about the efforts to cast a female Doctor in the 1980s actually does add to the article, as casting decisions aren't actually made in a vacuum; Moffat being who he is, it's not unreasonable to speculate that Newman's attempt to get a woman cast in the eighties, down the line helped shape the environment to cast Whittaker in 2017. The controversy over Whittaker's nude scenes (in particular, the tabloids publishing them) was picked up in reputable sources too, so they're encyclopaedic too. Sceptre (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If I believe that "lecturing" you about writing Wikipedia articles is necessary, then I will do so regardless. TOOMUCH is indeed mostly meant to stop "silly" additions, but that's not the only thing it does. It also prevents Wikipedia articles from becoming too bloated. Yes, it may add to the article, I'm not saying that it should be removed entirely - however, having only one out of six paragraphs concerning the casting of Whittaker as the Thirteenth Doctor under a section called "Casting" proves that there is entirely unnecessary material in that section. This is things like who may or may not have been thought up for the role - they have no affect on the series if they were never cast. The release of the nude scenes in a tabloid was not in reception to the casting itself, it was simply an (unnecessary) article about Whittacker. Therefore, reaction to the article is not reaction to the casting of Whittacker. And what of the PinkNews article? -- Alex^TW 07:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Given that I've written several Doctor Who FAs and more GAs, I feel that your assertion of authority isn't necessary at all. The article is nowhere near at risk of bloat, even under the old article size guidelines. Sceptre (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree that the article should be moved to the mainspace. There's no such thing as a "finished" article on Wikipedia, and this article is clearly good enough to be moved to where it belongs. Yes it could be improved, but that is exactly what will happen, especially if it is moved to the mainspace where other users will be more aware of its existence. Somethingwickedly (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting how you've never edited this article, yet have magically appeared with an opposing opinion, just as you had when I submitted an opinion on the requested move at "Dragonstone"... I think these weren't the only cases. Also noticed is how you didn't take note of any of the edits that would be required. -- Alex^TW 14:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to have edited an article to have an opinion on how it best serves Wikipedia. If you've got WP:CRYSTAL stuff in it, the best thing to do is to remove it, and add it when it no longer is crystal; or rephrase to limit to what is actually known or announced, to bring it within the guidelines. It makes no sense to hold back publishing the article.

If there are no other objections, I'll move it tomorrow. TJRC (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I know, but it's mysterious how they seem to drop by every discussion about moving an article that I've participated in. Given that there is an objection, it is in the best faith to wait until there is a full consensus before moving at all. Or even submitting a Requested Move discussion. None of the points have yet been addressed either. -- Alex^TW 02:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that we do indeed have a consensus, with only a single editor expressing a contrary opinion. I'm not sure what you mean by "full consensus," but if you mean unanimity, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity". If any editor could veto a move, Wikipedia would be a much less productive place.

It's nothing personal; we just want to have some progress. It would be an entirely different matter if this was a draft that was going on in parallel with another article in mainspace. But you've also been reverting any edits trying to build a mainspace article ([1], [2]), changing it back to a redirect and asking editors to edit here instead. TJRC (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I never said it was personal, I never took it as such. I just do not believe that the article is ready for the mainspace just yet. Realistically, I would back up the idea of not moving it until either the Christmas Special airs, or Series 11 starts filming, whichever comes first. And in the reverts to the mainspace article, which I was not reverting attempts to build an article, I was pointing that the article already existed here and to contribute here instead of creating a duplicate article. I mean, do you really back this and this version of the article? Would you have allowed them to be? -- Alex^TW 07:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not referring to specific edits. I'm referring to your deliberate obstruction of allowing the mainspace article to be built at all, coupled with you objecting to bringing the draft to mainspace. TJRC (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Trust me Alex, it is nothing personal. Game of Thrones and Doctor Who are two of my favourite TV shows. I edit articles on GoT frequently, and watch from afar and (occasionally) edit Doctor Who ones. I doubt (though it's possible) that we would overlap much on other articles. I've stated my opinion on two discussions, you have stated your opposing opinions on both (which I have no problem with apart from disagreeing). There is nothing more that. Somethingwickedly (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Alex that it was too early to go live with this article precisely because the character is not even due to appear on television for several months. (Sure, she's appeared in teasers. So what?) I suspect one reason he was the only dissenting voice is that very few other regular editors even knew this was going on or about to come out so early. But what's done is done, and moving on--- ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Casting a woman

I think Alex's point that there is a lot of cruft and bloat in the article is entirely valid, and that the problem is too much is here that could be somewhere else. It's certainly interesting to know a woman had been considered much earlier in the show's history, even back in the days of Michael Grade, but there's so much about "casting a woman" here that is not about this casting that, realistically, I believe it should have its own article, though an article broader in the vein of "Women actors in Doctor Who", which would have a section on how the female parts have evolved since the Sixties and how long it took to get a woman cast as the lead. Then this article could focus on this character and its casting. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about it, it could just as easily be discussed (and perhaps largely already is) in the main Doctor Who article. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Casting Sub-Sections

Do we really need to split the casting section into sub-sections ("Casting a woman"/"Casting Whittaker")? It's not been done for any other Doctor. The information is certainly relevant but having it split up this way seems weird format-wise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.11.108.74 (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that barely any of the content in the section actually addresses the casting of Whittaker bar the last paragraph, I would say that yes, they are necessary. The previous articles for the Doctor concern the casting of the actor as the character, which this one seems to have moved away from doing. -- Alex^TW 13:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Claim of the reception by "most fans"

This is absurd. How can the article claim to have a RS as to how "most fans" reacted to the casting decision? Most critics, certainly. But, considering the millions of fans, there is no way that any RS as to the reaction of "most fans" can possibly be gauged.197.88.60.232 (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

And now someone else has removed the "citation needed" tag, without commenting on this discussion, despite my having left "See talk page", in the Edit History. Clearly these people have no intention of engaging in an actual discussion, and are just using Mob Rules to try and push an issue. 197.88.60.232 (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What's more, the article as it read went straight from saying that the reaction "varied among fans" to stating that "most fans" reacted positively. I have now removed the unsourced claim that "most fans" reacted positively. I have also posted on the discussion pages of the two blankers, asking them to join this discussion. Their next moves will speak volumes. 197.88.60.232 (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

First off, an article stays at its stable version during discussion, even if you think it's the "wrong" version, so stop reverting. You've been reverted by two editors (at least) now; that should tell you something. Second, we don't form our own criteria for what constitutes all. We go by what the sources we consider reliable say. The edit has stood for some time, and is reliably sourced. It's up to you to gain consensus to make a change. So far, all I see is POV-pushing and edit warring, but no case that the sources for the edit are other than reliable. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 08:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm clearly not talking about "the article" as a whole. The tag was very specifically, and very obviously, placed for the part that says "most fans reacted positively". How can you possibly say that that specific part if Reliably Sourced? There's no source to back that up, reliable or unreliable. And yet when I placed the deserved tag there,you immediately deleted it. THAT is indeed pushing a POV. Please provide a WP:RS that says that most fans reacted positively (if such a thing is even possible). And kindly stop with the personal attacks while you are at it too. 197.88.60.232 (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What's more, and needs highlighting, you did not actually take part in this discussion.

You merely reverted an edit, and said that you prefer the "stable version". But again, Where is the WP:RS stating that most fans reacted positively to the casting? Failure to provide such a RS, means that a claim is unsourced. At which point a "citation needed" tag is a perfectly valid, and indeed required, thing to place in the article. Which is exactly why I placed such a tag there. Only for you to delete the tag, and then accuse me of "edit warring" for having done so. Please actually take part in this discussion, rather than just making blanket reverts, and accusations. 197.88.60.232 (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I must admit I'm puzzled by this. I ended up here because I thought Drmargi was being harassed by an IP but, from what I see, the IP's edit seems reasonable. WP:V, which is a core policy, says any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. The IP has challenged the claim that "most fans" reacted positively and this seems quite appropriate. The source at the end of the sentence doesn't say "most", it says "Hundreds of thousands of people around the world joined the debate", which is not the same. I can't see any justification for removing the citation needed tag.[3][4][5] A citation either needs to be provided or, per WP:V, the claim should be removed. Removing the citation needed tag without providing a citation or providing a supported justification is usually grounds for a warning. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the simplest solution is to add one of the many readily available reliable sources backing the claim.[6][7]--Trystan (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It's one thing to say "most fans" but that's a dubious claim at best since it can only ever be a best guess unless you actually take a poll. You can say "most fans who visited this website did not voice a negative opinion", since that can be verified, but you can't simply assume that "most fans" reacted positively because they didn't voice a negative opinion. A lot of people are silent on their opinions, both positive and negative. A source that says "most fans" has to be viewed with suspicion. Even reliable sources can be unreliable at times. You can certainly say "the Birmingham Mail reported that most fans" but you can't state it as an absolute fact. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That strikes me as too high a standard for a fairly simple and straightforward claim. Reliable entertainment media news sources are capable of determining a reasonable standard for supporting general claims about fan reactions, which may involve gauging online reaction and speaking to sources. Where a claim is found in multiple reliable sources, we should reflect what the sources say. To impose a higher standard of evidence (e.g., polling data) than the sources felt was necessary crosses the line from critical source evaluation into original research. I think it's natural to interpret "Most fans reacted..." as not making claims about fans that didn't express a reaction.--Trystan (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not a simple and straightforward claim at all. It's extraordinary and extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. "Most people breath air" is simple and straightforward. "Based on fan reaction, most fans appear to have reacted positively" is a reasonable claim but when you state "Most fans reacted positively" you need to have something to back that up. Let's look at it the other way: "Most people do not like Doctor Who" is a claim that could be made based on viewer figures but is it a reasonable claim? I'd argue no because the simple fact that people don't watch a program does not necessarily mean that they don't like it. It just means they don't watch it. Similarly, you can't assume that fans who have not voiced an opinion support the character. This is a case where you have to use a little common sense. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to the party; busy day. The qualifying language makes sense to me. I was satisfied it was well sourced once upon a time (it wasn't my original work, though I did edit the section), but a lot of folks have tinkered with it over time. My concern was the wholesale sweeping away of what was at least reasonably sourced, which seemed to have been drive at least in part by a dislike of Whittaker's casting. I wasn't the only editor who restored the stable version, so I wasn't alone in my thinking. Let's update or supplement the sources, add some qualified language and job's a good 'un. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 06:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

How can you argue "most fans" without a clear citation with back-up. It's like saying "Most Americans prefer Donald Trump" because he won the election. Without an appropriate source, a {{citation needed}} tag is very appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not. I'm saying that, at one time, I was satisfied with the sourcing, and that I agree that some qualified language might be in order, given the changes that have taken place. Period. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I’ve taken a pass at revising the section to remove the contested language and group the reaction into fans/critics/DW actors/other.--Trystan (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Positive, mixed, confused

I don't think "confused" is the right word at all. That would imply widespread bafflement, or lots of fans not really knowing what they think. The sources show quite the opposite; i.e. that there were strong opinions on both sides of the debate, with many fans welcoming the news and others criticising the decision. There's no confusion recorded. Hence my choice of "mixed".

However, there have been several edits by different people since last night, so it wouldn't be right for me to try to impose my choice of word without a discussion, so let's discuss. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right. "Mixed" is clearly the right word to use here. "Mixed reactions" is a fairly common term and means that reactions were not almost all the same, but were a mix of positive, negative and neutral. "Confused" wrongly implies that fans were, well, confused. ~Asarlaí 20:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see much support in reliable sources for the claim that fan reaction was mixed. While sources provide examples of both positive and negative fan reaction, they consistently indicate the overall level of fan reaction was positive, with a minority reacting negatively:

• BBC: “The reaction to Whittaker's casting was mostly positive - but a sizeable minority protested that the Doctor shouldn't be played by a woman.”
• Birmingham Daily Mail: "While the majority of committed viewers delighted in the announcement on social media, others hit out at the decision... Most fans celebrated as Peter Capaldi's successor was named..."
• Radio Times: “Mirroring the results of RadioTimes.com’s poll, the reaction among fans online has been overwhelmingly positive, with Brandwatch noting that 80 per cent of posts about the news to social media categorised as positive compared to 20 per cent negative.”
• The Independent: "...most fans have been overjoyed at the announcement. However, due to the Doctor’s gender change, some have been less welcoming to Whittaker..."

The article's previous wording, which described the reaction as positive but went on to note the minority position in the same sentence, closely reflected the sources. Describing the reaction as mixed introduces a false balance into the article not supported by the reliable sources..--Trystan (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

As you did not approve of "confused", how about "interesting" ... Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 09:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the usage of interesting, as it appears as if we, the editors of this article, are giving our own opinion on this. I agree with Trystan, in which the fan reaction was mostly positive, and that the article should reflect this. -- Alex^TW 10:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the wording was confused, because it described the reaction as positive, but then immediately launched into one of the common criticisms levelled by fans unhappy with the change. I personally don't see the false balance, as 80/20 is a clear mix of views (20% is still 1 in 5 fans, as you know), and not a unanimity. Indeed all of the sources you cite indicate to me a mixed reaction, though this comes down to personal interpretation, of course.

However, if we were to put in "fan reaction was mostly positive", that would be both accurate, supported by the sources, and would make the criticisms seem less out of place. The caveat of 'mostly' makes clear that the positive reaction wasn't unanimous, but was the majority view. Would that be acceptable to you? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Trystan (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Poll of Doctor Who fans

I don't think it's creating a false balance to call the reaction "mixed". This poll of more than 30,000 fans shows that the reactions were indeed mixed, with 52% positive and almost 48% negative. However, if the consensus is to go with "fan reaction was mostly positive" then I think we should at least qualify it like the BBC did, by saying right after that "a sizeable minority" were unhappy. ~Asarlaí 15:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Doctor Who TV considered a reliable source? Just asking. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It's one of the bigger Doctor Who websites and is used on dozens of Doctor Who articles on Wikipedia, and I see it has a list of editors and staff. I think it's fine to use the source in the very limited way we do, to say only that "A poll of 30,000 fans on the website Doctor Who TV found that 52% were happy with the casting, while 48% were unhappy". ~Asarlaí 17:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the poll because of what is called selection bias. These sites' users tend to bias male and British, and it's a male group which largely represents the viewers opposed to the casting. There is also a large, misogynist group on YouTube going on endlessly about it; if they decided to stack the vote, it can bias heavily. Given the lack of controls on the poll, there is plenty of doubt its results are representative of the show's actual audience (remember, it has large audiences in the U.S. and Canada as well). As a result, mention of it should be removed. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless a reliable secondary source talks about the poll, mentioning it would give it undue weight. DonQuixote (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that this website or poll is biased heavily towards British males, or that a "large, misogynist group" has stacked the vote. We're not claiming that the poll represents the show's whole audience. All we're saying is that this particular poll of Doctor Who fans gave these results (see here). We shouldn't remove a properly-sourced statement based on unsourced speculation. Moffat's claim of "80% approval on social media" is unlikely to represent the whole audience either, but we've kept that in the article too. I also don't see how mentioning it in one line halfway down the article is giving it undue weight. ~Asarlaí 20:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this comment to the letter. Nobody's claiming the poll sums up fan reactions as a whole; I'm a fan, and the poll doesn't represent my view on Whittaker's casting. However, it is a legitimate source that helps to build up the overall picture of a mixed / mostly positive / confused as hell (which one are we at now?) reaction from the fans. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Margi and DonQuixote that we should not include this (or any other) online poll. When sufficiently caveated, become meaningless. The wording proposed, that this is a poll of "30,000 fans", suggests 30,000 unique respondents, which is a claim the source does not go so far as to make explicitly (reasonably so, given the ease of spamming an online poll with bot responses). There has been a Radio Times online poll available since mid-July, and I think we have been right not to add it to the article.--Trystan (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Series 11 Page?

Is it right to move the Series 11 page from just a draft? The BBC claim it has begun filming and there seems to be enough evidence online (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41928500). TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex^TW 23:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2017

When will this statement end? a semi colon certainly would allow the read to take a breath: "A year after the announcement that Steven Moffat would leave the show after the tenth series and be replaced by new showrunner Chris Chibnall, Peter Capaldi confirmed in January 2017 that the tenth series would be his last." suggest "Chris Chibnall; Peter Capaldi" 2605:E000:9143:7000:890E:A45C:9AE:CB9D (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Correct as is (could do with a copy edit, though). The primary subject of the sentence is Peter Capaldi and his departure. Capaldi confirmed that he would be leaving in January 2017, which was a year after Steven Moffat's announcement of departure. -- Alex^TW 00:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I have made the following revision:
Peter Capaldi confirmed in January 2017 that the tenth series would be his last. A year earlier, Steven Moffat announced that he would leave the show after the tenth series too. He is replaced by new showrunner Chris Chibnall. Following this news, several media reports and bookmakers had speculated as to who would replace Capaldi as the Thirteenth Doctor. Bookmakers' favourites included Ben Whishaw, ...
 Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 10:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I made a slight copyedit. It should read in chronological order: Moffat's leaving, then a year later Capaldi's leaving, then as a result of this are discussions of his replacements. -- Alex^TW 10:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You are, of course, right and I noticed that while I was adding my revision but I was concentrating on smooth-flowing prose rather than being strictly chronological.
 Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 11:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Characterisation?

Has anything yet been said about what the Whittaker Doctor is actually like as a character? By this stage we knew that the Capaldi Doctor would be a rather rude, undiplomatic crabby sort and that Matt Smith's Doctor would be a gawky eccentric professor type trapped in the body of a youth. Has antyihg yet been said about what sort of personality the Thirteenth Doctor has and what direction Whittaker will be taking the character? 62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really. News on Series 11 is very secretive at the moment. I'm sure once it's available, it'll be added. -- Alex^TW 16:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I think people have been so excited by the prospect of a female Doctor that they haven't yet stopped to ask what she's actually gonna be like... Someone should just ask Whittaker or Chibnall straight out at a convention. 79.176.167.27 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware that this talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM. -- Alex^TW 00:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but Characterisation is a pretty important and relevant section of any article on a Doctor. And here we are, unable to write that section because it hasn't occurred to anyone to actually, y'know, ask those in the know about Characterisation. 109.66.49.67 (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Or perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that people have, but details have not yet been released by the actress or showrunner, as we're still 6-7 months out from the premiere of the series. -- Alex^TW 23:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a certain amount about characterisation on Radio Times' website, so I'll add that as a starter section.62.190.148.115 (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody has done anything more about this. There must have been quite a few interviews and critical analyses of the Whittaker Doctor's character by now. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

By all means, provide them, then. -- Alex^TW 23:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Also you‘d have to include the new Timeless Child regens DoctorWhoEditor2 (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Nature of fan reaction

The page currently says "Fan reaction to Whittaker's casting was largely positive, although a minority were unhappy."

The only source for this is a single BBC article. The BBC is hardly neutral on the issue and it cites no objective data to support these assertions (which could then be used as the primary source.) I have therefore attempted to amend the text to reflect this non-neutrality as follows:

"The BBC asserted that fan reaction to Whittaker's casting was largely positive, although a minority were unhappy"

The only objection I have received to this is that "This is sufficiently well sourced that the statement can stand as is." This is simply incorrect. It is well-established that certain particular individuals reacted positively to the change. It is well-established that the change provoked both positive and negative reactions amongst fans. However, the only provided source as to the respective sizes of the positive/negative camps is a mere assertion from the BBC, who have a clear commercial interest in there being a positive reaction. That is not "well sourced." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.12.0 (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is sufficiently well sourced. Do you have another reliable source that says anything different? If not, why are you wasting your time? Closeclouds (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

BBC News is a reliable source (see here) and there is no evidence that they aren't being neutral. TedEdwards 18:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Both of you miss the point. BBC is a reliable source. That is not in dispute. My argument is that on this particular point, it can hardly be considered a reasonably neutral source. As Wikipedia itself acknowledges here, "Reliable sources may be non-neutral":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources

The BBC obviously has a significant commercial interest in its product - Doctor Who - being well-received, so its non-neutrality on this point is beyond sensible argument.

I'm not aware of any other reliable sources that address this issue. But again, that complaint misses the point. Assuming that the BBC article constitutes the best evidence we have on the issue, I'm simply arguing that the Wikipedia article should reflect the quality of that evidence.

Alternatively, if you are aware of a reliable non-neutral source that makes the same assertion as the BBC, I will happily concede that that would defeat my current position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.12.0 (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

See Radio Times]. DonQuixote (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

1. The IP editor is 100% right. No source provided for the claim is an independent source.
2. DonQuixote does not explain why he links to the Radio Times, but in the context I assume he thinks it is an independent source. However, it isn't, because it is published under licence from BBC Worldwide.
3. Whatever one thinks of the sourcing, why do some editors object to including the information that the statement about the "fan reaction" comes from the BBC? It does, and I see no reason why the readers of the article shouldn't be informed that it does. What on earth is lost by giving them that information? If they think that it is relevant, then providing them with the information is helpful to them, and if they don't then they can ignore it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

   Because the statement doesn’t just come from the BBC, but is supported broadly in reliable sources. See the list in the “Positive, mixed, confused“ subsection above.--Trystan (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

   From Radio Times Website is owned and published by Immediate Media Company Limited. www.immediatemedia.co.uk. See [8]. DonQuixote (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

   Yes, the web site is owned by them, and the Radio Times is published by them under license from an organisation which belongs to the BBC. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

   Mashable DonQuixote (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

   The BBC is definitely neutral. It is a service controlled by the British Government, which forces the BBC to to do all [they] can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in [their] news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.. The BBC goes further and states applying due impartiality to all subjects. (see here) Also, they do publish news that does not do them any favours (e.g. here) TedEdwards 18:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

What you really mean, 81.152.12.0 is that YOU are unhappy with the casting of Whittaker and you got upset at reading what the article said. Ha ha. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I got here now and this article has the same problem, as Star Wars 8. Both are said in their wikis, that the fans have "largely positive reaction". While, if you looked at the forums or at any site during these, what you see? A lot of fans were hated this changing (or hated SW8). I think mixed would be a good describing. And for the BBC as source: it is the worst source in this case. It is produced by BBC, so they never say: "OK, we have a women now as the main and we get the news, that the fans were hated it." It would be the worst PR. If a country leader say: "We will kill everyone from B country and nobody complained yet" is seems believable for anyone? Of course not. So, BBC is not a useable source in this case, even though in other cases BBC is neutral. Also you never saw Disney saing, that Solo SW was failed, because the fans hated SW8. Also (as a new journalist) one source in these cases are not enough. We speak about opinions. One poll have not enough to see the whole fans. hph01 (talk) 21:13, 08 August 2019 (CET)

So...what do you mean by "a lot of fans"? If you mean tens of fans (which is probably the size of the users at those forums) out of 7,000,000 (the number of people who watched the above), it's not "a lot". Learn some science. DonQuixote (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Technically 15th

Should it be mentioned anywhere in the article that she is technically playing the fifteenth incarnation? The eighth being the movie Doctor, ninth War Doctor, tenth played by Eccleston, eleventh and twelfth by Tennant, thirteenth by Smith, and fourteenth by Capaldi. I'm not asking to change the article name, just to mention the curiosity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.111.226.163 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Regeneration (Doctor Who)#Maximum number of regenerations in a cycle. DonQuixote (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Should the ‘Preceded by’ section exist?

Since the previous Doctor actor bit exists, preceded by isn’t really needed DoctorWhoEditor2 (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Preceded by is for the actor, not the Doctor. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Putting your head in the sand here?

The artcle is very positive on [Jodie Whittaker]. I wonder why not take notice of the tanking views, tanking ratings, the general hostility "13th Doctor" (we all know the numbering is wrong, but whatever) induced amongst the fandom, and the apathy in general in the viewers who left the channel in crowd. There is nothing positive in the reception of this abomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:373C:3080:C4B2:ADA6:B9B8:F73D (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If you can cite a reliable source that says any of the above, then that would be a great start. DonQuixote (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Good luck finding one. - Sumanuil (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Why give this any oxygen? It doesn't contribute to the improvement of the article; it's just some neanderthal's ranting. Remove it. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m curious about when these things come up because it seems as if the ratings are easy to find [9]https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/doctor-who-season-13-ratings/ (which are pulled from the Nielsen numbers), [10]https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-series-13-2021-22-uk-ratings-accumulator-95514.htm, [11]https://cosmicbook.news/doctor-who-ratings-legend-sea-devils, [12]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/bbc-has-failed-doctor-jodie-whittaker-no-wonder-quitting/ (the Telegraph is cited as an RS) - it appears as if there is problem acknowledging the ratings decline, this seems to be endemic these days to the point of violating WP:5P2 also... characterizing and editor's contribution as "some neanderthal's ranting" flies in the face of WP:EQ 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

A ratings decline doesn't mean unpopularity CreecregofLife (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m not quite understanding the logic in that statement. Ratings are an indication of the number of eyes on a program, diminishing numbers would indicate a decrease in audience and correspondingly less appeal which wouldn’t indicate a growth in popularity. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

A ratings decline can be for many reasons, including such things as what else was on TV at the time, quality of scripts, and what the weather was like outside. Even if the program has been less popular, attributing it to the presence of one actor is a big leap, and obvious original research. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I find these discussions become circular after a point - there is a ratings decline, full stop. The show is at its lowest ratings since the relaunch, again full stop. There are many factors but nowhere in my comments did I attribute the decline specifically to Jodie Whitaker please reread the previous statements. The point here is the decline in ratings should be noted. Remember WP:DBF 71.190.233.44 (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If it can't be attributed to Jodie Whittaker or even this character, then it has nothing to do with this article. DonQuixote (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree, although the series may star Jodie Whitaker in the title role if you’re going to note reviewer response to the series over her time in the role you should be noting the declining ratings as well as per WP:NPOV 19:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 71.190.233.44 (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

You really need to understand WP:DUE. Wikipedia is not a repository of all knowledge, rather it's a summary of secondary sources. If secondary sources aren't talking about it (keeping in mind in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint), then it's trivia. DonQuixote (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you’re absolutely right. The ratings aren’t any secret and notation of it is prevalent so giving nothing but praise would when the ratings are diminishing is certainly placing undue weight on favorable reviewd. Glad you agree. 00:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC) 71.190.233.44 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Your attempt at a dramatic sting might have been more effective if you would have provided more sources to illustrate that there's significant coverage and thus due weight. Please study WP:NPOV, particularly WP:DUE. Also, placing any meaning to raw data is original research, which should be handled by reputable secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

What sting? I was agreeing with your point. The ratings are clear and even Chris Chibnall has acknowledged he fully expects Russell Davies to ignore what’s been done over the series under his stewardship because it hasn’t generated the audience he would’ve liked. Weighting it the other way certainly flies in the face of WP:DUE, I think you’re absolutely right on that. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that this is you assigning meaning and not reliable sources. Again, please study WP:DUE, as it applies to the weight of reliable sources and not your own personal analyses. DonQuixote (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, see my comment regarding circular discussions above.

Originally, I commented on what the OP stated at the top of this thread and once again have seen the conversation digress into a justification for ignoring information.

If there is a problem recognizing the drop in ratings and citing of RS, while I might be able to cite a few sources, my sense is they wouldn’t pass your muster as any kind of RS. While I want to embrace WP:AGF I’ve found in these situations there appears to be a moving of goalposts. Earlier on the talk page we even see there is a problem with Radio Times as being a RS.

However, if that is the case, then it means there is a bigger job that needs doing because Wikipedia’s other pages Doctor Who including episode summaries include the data (ratings and viewership) Since sourcing seems to be such an issue as you say then the data should not be recognized and should be removed (and you are welcome to do so I checked one such source and doubt it would pass your muster).

Unfortunately, what I’m seeing instead is a dedicated and purposeful denial of said info is cognitive bias at work. Again, when you cited the policy WP:NPOV I had thought you were admitting you recognized the article was not in fact neutral and embodied WP:DBF as much of it talks up the casting while ignoring the resultant decline in audience. In any event, I’ve put far more effort into this discussion than I had intended to and leave it to others to continue. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, what you're trying to do is the purview of secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Here's the rule of thumb

1. Start with a direct quote
2. Start paraphrasing
3. Anything not explicitly stated in the quote is original research

For example, if you can directly quote a source as saying something like "The ratings for series X has fallen because of [reasons]" then that's a start. If you have ten of these quotes that we're ignoring then you'll be correct in claiming cognitive bias, but you're nowhere near that.

Seriously, we summarize what reliable sources are saying, we don't pull what reliable sources are saying to state something new no matter how obvious it seems (see WP:SYNTH). DonQuixote (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)