Talk:Can You Hear Me? (Doctor Who)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Can You Hear Me? (Doctor Who) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Can You Hear Me? (Doctor Who) is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

pre-opening scene

should we mention what the last episode that had a pre-opening credits scene was? cuz this episode has one! Visokor (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be trivial. The series 12 article already states that a number of the episodes of this series will include a cold opening. -- /Alex/₂₁ 20:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

look, as far as I'm aware, the last episode to use a cold open was the last Christmas special (the last episode with Peter Capaldi). Visokor (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spyfall, Part 1. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes

@Sebastian James: I'll start a discussion for you. Is there a problem with the standard of the default text that episode articles use? If so, why have you not updated past articles? Also if so, then cite your policy reasoning for reverting my edits, other than you wanting your personal text to remain and not allow any edits to it. If not... I guess we don't have an issue. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I created the section, you rewrote it – CHANGED it, not reverted it, which was a bold edit – then I reverted you. Secondly, where is the default text that we have to use in every TV aricle? It can't be MOS:TVRECEPTION, is it from somewhere else which is "not an official guideline, only a discussion with no consensus."? You are just owning articles at this point, and you have been reverted by multiple editors by now. I have talked about copy editing etc. with other editors before, and most of them agreed with me. Basically, for article quality, we didn't want to copy and paste sentences to other articles. So, when someone writes an original sentence that meets the requests of the reception section, do not remove it. There is nothing wrong with having different writing. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 15:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you "created" it? And? Does that mean nobody can touch it? And actually, it's for consistency. Wikipedia has always preferred consistency between its millions of articles; not sure if you'd noticed that, that's why we use the same sections and the same infobox and the same way to list the cast everytime. Should we get rid of those? If it was you that reverted my changes (note: just you, nobody else has reverted my edits concerning these changes, so stop trying to make false allegations, it's just making you look silly), then explain why. You have not explained why you felt the need to revert it. If it's about your statement "most of them agreed with me", then... ^{[citation needed]}. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YOU have not explained why you reverted it. I added info and you completely changed it without any sources. You have failed to present anything such as MOS:TVRECEPTION. I am not trying to make false allegations, you have been reverted by multiple editors on other articles about Doctor Who (mostly). You should stop owning articles. Just because you create articles about new Doctor Who episodes doesn't mean they have to be written by you only. (Oh, and, that thing you stated about infoboxes? LMAO, is it funny... You can use infoboxes differently and you don't have to use them at all (a featured article example that doesn't contain any infoboxes. I know! It is possible.)) −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 06:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert what? I made a copyedit to the Reception text. State clearly why that was not acceptable; you have not yet been able to. What further sources were needed to support the content? Please answer clearly; you have not yet been able to. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Of the two wordings, I thnink Alex's is better. His wording is cleaner, simpler and more efficient.

That said, I think Alex has behaved disgracefully, and Sebastian has every right to be angry and irritated by his conduct.

Firstly, Alex has blatantly violated BRD. He made the edit at 11:27 on 12 February 2020. Sebastian reverted him at 13:18. It was for Alex to then come to the talk page per BRD and gain consensus for his view. When he reverted Sebastian at 9:30 on 13 February 2020 maintaining it was for Sebastian to come to the talk page, he was simply wrong. When he passively aggressively insinuated, when starting this talk thread, that it should have been Sebastian who started it, he was similarly wrong. He was the one who should have started it.

Secondly, Alex is quite clearly guilty of the very thing he accuses Sebastian of: namely "wanting your personal text to remain and not allow any edits to it". It is Alex who has maintained that this text is inheremly better because it is the 'default text' - an obviously nonsense reason (Wikipedia has no default text). He has furter failed to articulate any positive reason for preferring his text over Sebastian's - even though, per BRD, the onus is on him to do so.

As I said, I think that Alex's wording is actually better. But it is a great shame that he failed to articulate any positive case for that at all, and that he failed to show his fellow WP editor any basic respect and courtesy at all.167.98.62.2 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wow." A random IP. Thanks for your opinion. Greatly appreciated. Discuss content, not conduct. If it looks like a duck... -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a jerk, Alex21. IPs are human too, so are you. Do not despise an IP who has opinions, assume good faith. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 06:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss content, not conduct. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

BARB does not include Dr Who in it's top 15 rankings for BBC1 for this week. They have not published any final figure for this episode. A fan site has published 4.9 million without any back up or substantiation and that fan site has been linked as the source here. I really don't think this can be accepted based on wikipedia criteria.2601:647:5803:9630:24E5:7C8E:79F:A7F4 (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The site has been proved to be a reliable source across dozens of Doctor Who articles as a source for ratings. There was previously also a source from the DWM verified Twitter account supporting the 4.90m rating, supported by previous editor Tom Spilsbury. BARB also releases far more information than the top 15 rankings; it's only the top 15 that are made available to the public. So, that's not to say that BARB had no ratings information for Doctor Who at all this week. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]