Talk:Doctor Who series 14/Archive 2

*Doctor Who series 14/Archive 2*
Doctor Who series 14/Archive 2
Series 2
Showrunner	Russell T Davies
Starring	Ncuti Gatwa; Millie Gibson;
No. of stories	7
No. of episodes	8 (+1 special)
Release
Original network	BBC One; Disney+;
Original release	25 December 2023
Original release	11 May –; 22 June 2024
Series chronology
	← Previous; 2023 specials
	List of episodes

This is an archive of past discussions about Doctor Who series 14. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Episode titles and articles

Space Babies (draft)
The Devil's Chord (draft)
Boom (Doctor Who) (draft)
73 Yards (draft)
Dot and Bubble (draft)
Rogue (Doctor Who) (draft)
The Legend of Ruby Sunday (draft)
Empire of Death (Doctor Who episode) (draft)
Joy to the World (Doctor Who) (draft)

-- Alex_21_TALK 01:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Based on the continued existance of Empire of Death, the finale will likely end up at Empire of Death (Doctor Who episode) per WP:NCEPISODE, while the former article will need to be moved to Empire of Death (Doctor Who novel), similar to Thin Ice (Doctor Who episode) and Thin Ice (Doctor Who audio). -- Alex_21_TALK 01:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Done -- Alex_21_TALK 08:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Should pre-existing information be filled in on these drafts? E.g. current casting announcements? I notice the transmission dates are already listed on the articles for instance Estaphel (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, I've only just created the bare bones for that sort of thing, so please do. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of sending the empire of death novel to AFD assuming it gets deleted the draft should be moved to Empire of Death (Doctor Who)? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that the AFD has closed as a merge, the disambiguation should remain the same, with a hatnote pointing towards the list location of the novel. -- Alex_21_TALK 21:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alex 21: I've moved the draft to (Doctor Who). The hat note needs to be adjusted once the merger is done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant Despite my saying the exact opposite? The disambiguation is still required; there is still another element of Doctor Who called Empire of Death, so the "episode" disambiguation is needed. I'll move it back presently. -- Alex_21_TALK 06:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

My instinct was to agree with Alex on this one, but looking over WP:NCDAB I'm a bit more confused. Shouldn't we be using Empire of Death (episode) where possible, only adding 'Doctor Who' if there is another episode that needs disambiguating from (which there is not)? U-Mos (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NCEPISODE, we disambiguate with the television series, and disambiguate further with "episode/character/element" when necessary. Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show, disambiguate further using Article title (Show Title episode/character/element). We can see this in Thin Ice (Doctor Who episode) (Thin Ice (Doctor Who audio) is a redirect), Dalek (Doctor Who episode) (Dalek (Doctor Who) is a redirect to disambiguation), and Rose (Doctor Who episode) (Rose (Doctor Who) is a disambiguation page). A non-Who example would be Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) (Winterfell (Game of Thrones) is a redirect). -- Alex_21_TALK 08:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Well that's alright then! However, When the other element does not have its own article, further disambiguation is generally not necessary. However, always use common sense and best judgment to prevent ambiguity... is noted there, so I don't think we can begrudge a discussion to establish the best common sense route. U-Mos (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

A discussion I'm absolutely happy to participate in. I still question @OlifanofmrTennant's choice to read my comment saying the disambiguation is necessary, and then respond to it, ignore my comment and immediately move the article. -- Alex_21_TALK 11:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The thing is the other Doctor Who thing isn't notable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay? It still exists. See the Thin Ice example I provided twice. -- Alex_21_TALK 22:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I found Draft:Joy to the World (Doctor Who episode) had also been created, I redirected to the draft mentioned above. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho Fantastic, thanks for that. The "episode" disambiguation is definitely not needed here. -- Alex_21_TALK 07:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the drafts for Space Babies and the Devil's Chord be moved to the mainspace now? They certainly look ready for it. Panda815 (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Done -- Alex_21_TALK 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alex 21: (or any other page mover), Dot and Bubble is probably ready for the mainspace. Ideally it still needs an expanded plot, but the production and critical response sections are solid. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Done -- Alex_21_TALK 23:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Millie Gibson introduced as the new companion

I find it misleading that the text refers to the "introduction" of Millie Gibson, but phrases Ncuti Gatwa as "stars in." This is misleading because it implies this in actress Gibson's first role. It is not her first role. She was a much-loved character in Coronation Street for many years. The text should be changed to read "Also co-stars Millie Gibson as..." Mhk-who (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Context: The Fifteenth Doctor was introduced in "The Giggle" (2023)...The series also introduces Millie Gibson as the Doctor's newest companion, Ruby Sunday. DonQuixote (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The phrase does not mean the series introduces Gibson to the world, but to the show. It's a very commonly used phrase – see, for example Doctor Who series 11: The series introduces Jodie Whittaker as the Thirteenth Doctor and The series also introduces Bradley Walsh, Tosin Cole, and Mandip Gill as the Doctor's newest travelling companions. Irltoad (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point. It is consistent with phrasing in other new character elements. However, being consistent doesn't make it correct. In the film industry the use of the word "introduce" means the audience is seeming the actor for the very first time and is generally not applied to a new character. But as it is consistently used to mean actor/character hear, I will accept it. Mhk-who (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"joins the cast" would be better than "introduce" 2407:7000:9DD5:BF00:796E:4115:6D02:7434 (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This series introduced an entirely new cast. There is no cast to "join" as such; it introduced a new Doctor and a new companion. -- Alex_21_TALK 00:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

number of episodes aired

I counted 6 episodes/6 stories aired with the new Docctor and companion, "The Church on Ruby Road," "Space Babies," "The Devil's Chord," "Boom," "73 Yards," "Dot and Bubble" (aired June 1st). Are you not counting the first episode? WordwizardW (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Specials aren't counted for any series. Indagate (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@WordwizardW Do you see the number in the "Number in series" column, the second one? -- Alex_21_TALK 22:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Which skips the first episode - despite the Disney+ episode having the 2023 special as episode 1. Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

And despite every other source not calling the special episode 1. It's interesting how the "official" sources are quoted in specific scenarios, and are completely ignored in other matters... -- Alex_21_TALK 03:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It's funny how the 2023 episode is selectively included as part of this season, but selectively excluded at other times - despite even BBC considering it not part of the season. Nfitz (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You've had that explained to you a multitude of times. It's not a part of this season, it is simply listed as such for convenience, same as the dozen-odd seasonal specials that came before it, nor is it part of the 60th anniversary trio of specials. -- Alex_21_TALK 06:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile BBC IPlayer has the 2023 special separate from Series 14 with Space Babies being Episode 1. It doesn't really matter either way, the status quo is fine enough as is. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Cosmic Book News

I'm just curious if anyone else actually has an opinion on the reliability of this source? I'm not sure if it's been discussed elsehwere, but I can see from a quick search that it's been used elsewhere on WP. The claim it would support is very neutral and is about Nielsen ratings. The disputing editor removed it becsuse it's "right wing". While that may be true, that in and of itself is not a reason to exclude the information. WP:BIASED states "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." and a section just below WP:BESTSOURCES says "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." Again, the claim that this source is supporting isn't even about the programmes content, but even if it was, it's not the only one to claim that DW has become "woke", including the Telegraph which is often considered reliable. That said, given that it would be used in a neutral and non-biased context, I don't see a problem with it's inclusion? TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

While you are absolutely right concerning bias and maintaining a neutral point of view, I also agree that the site is not reliable. The best way to determine a site's reliability is by it's about section. This shows that the team that run the site has no editorial qualificiations, and it is an independent site. This means that it is not a reliable secondary source. The same applies for this site, which, as far as I can tell, doesn't even have an About section; though, the detailing in the footer confirms that is is an individually-run independent site. -- Alex_21_TALK 08:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, i won't push for it then. Hopefully some better sources for the claim follow soon as the 7/28-day data starts to get finalized. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

DYKs

I am stating now that I intend to nominate the first two episodes for DYK. The WP:DRWHO has had almost no DYK in recent years. I believe these 8 episode will greatly assist in this. I also have intentions to get 14x2 to GAN once I wrap up the series 2 GAN. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Both episode 1 and 2 have been nomed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I just expanded "Boom" significantly. You hopefully shouldn't have trouble pulling potential DYK's from it. I think I may try to get Boom to GAN, I just need to do a copy edit on the critical response section and hopefully expand it from it's current state.

TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll get a QPQ done and look over the page. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 13:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that Boom has now passed WP:WHO has achvied 3 GAs in a month last time this happened January 2022. Before that April 2020. I dont TDC or 73Y are to far away from GAN. I think a Series 14 GT May be possible. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing regarding a GT. I was actually getting ready to nominate 73Y, the only thing it's really missing is viewing figures which should be here in a few days. I'd be willing to take that on if you want to focus on TDC since you've already put quite a bit of work into that one. These ([1] and [2]) may also help you with that (or the full Unleashed episode if you have access to iPlayer). TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be willing to conominate 73Y if you'd be okay with that. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't mind at all, I listed you as a co-nominator!

TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This should help us keep track of where we are:

Doctor Who series 14

10 articles

File:Doctor Who Logo 2023.svg

"The Church on Ruby Road"

"73 Yards"

"The Legend of Ruby Sunday"

"Empire of Death" (Doctor Who episode)

TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I think a Series 14 GT May be possible. Series 14 has not yet concluded and may be subject to mass changes as it continues to air; this article, at this point, definitely shouldn't be nominated. Wait until some time after the finale has aired. -- Alex_21_TALK 04:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth I do agree, I personally didn't plan on nominating it anytime soon. Episode articles however don't typically change much after a week or so, bar some viewing figures, so those can be worked on in the meantime. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: Thank you for putting the table together. A bit of an update, I have sent The Devil's Chord to GAN. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: Would you be interested in going back to get space babies and TCORR to GAN? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to nominate rouge for DYK. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I just sent Space Babies off to the powers that be at GAN. The series article is all that's left now! We could always nominate Rouge's DYK after the GAR if we still wanted to. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Christmas special - in series 14 or not in series 14?

An IP editor updated the infobox to have the episode count and start date include the 2023 Christmas special. I was going to revert them with the reason "TCORR is not part of series 14", but it is included in the episode table.

I don't think we can have it both ways. If the infobox is to reflect series 14 and only series 14, shouldn't we remove the Christmas special from the episode table? It feels odd to claim it as part of series 14 by including in in this table, but also to reject it as being part of series 14 by keeping it out of the infobox.

If it's important to keep it mentioned in some way, is there a way we can more clearly separate and delineate it from series 14? Have it in a section by itself before or after the main episode table with a sentence saying something along the lines of "Series 14 was preceded by a Christmas special in 2023..."? JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@JustAnotherCompanion: I am going to revert to the status quo for now pending this discussion because fully implementing a change like that would require updating 9/13 other series articles. As Alex, and others, have said previously. It's simply included here for convivence. Multiple aspects of the specials production, airing, casting, marketing, etc. are covered here as well. Many sources agree that the series has eight episodes and it'd be a major failure on Wikipedia's part to list more than that. However, it also feels like we're not fully covering the topic to remove it, given that it was produced in the same production run, and is included on the home media release.

I could potentially see changing it to something like I included on the right as a compromise. It would be incorrect to say the series aired from December all the way thorough to May when there was a five month gap with no episodes. I do have to say it seems a little odd that we include supplemental episodes in the Infoboxes (Doctor Who series 2, Doctor Who series 6, Doctor Who specials (2023), etc.) when the specials are full episodes of the programme and receive a numbered story, where supplemental episodes don't? However, I'm still not entirely sure it'd be necessary. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll start by saying I absolutely understand everything you say here, and the action taken.

I don't dispute that multiple sources say the series has 8 episodes. I also appreciate the extras (using that word rather than the more specific 'Christmas special' to allow for what I say to apply to other series articles also) being included for all the reasons you give. Where I'm coming from is "Something here is clearly confusing people, so how do we make it less confusing?"

I'll ignore the infobox for a second to concentrate on the article. I think having a single table makes things confusing. My preference would be for a single table for the series 14 episodes, and a separate table or section for the extras - in this case the Christmas special. Then people could still see and have access to all the related information, but it's more clearly split from the actual series.

Granted this then introduces the argument of whether you go series first then specials, or whether you try to go chronological and have the series table or section in some cases preceded by the specials section. I'll not go too deeply into that now,though, will wait and see if a split happens first.

Back to the infobox; my understanding of Wikipedia infoboxes is that they're supposed to be useful for at-a-glance information, and that anything more complicated should be left for the article. The one of the key points for infoboxes is to try and avoid doing too much heavy lifting with them, as were (and this is where I've had an issue with chronology in episode infoboxes, something I also have to come back to. But I digress). I think your proposed infobox amendment is an improvement over the existing one that ignores the Christmas special, and the reverted one that added the special to the count. I think my preference would be to have '8' on one line and 'Christmas Special' on the next line - but I realise that's because I'm looking at this case in isolation, and that if there's even one other series with multiple specials in addition to episodes, listing them like this would make the infobox look clunky.

I would be most interested in seeing what other editors think. I'm aware that I'm in waters where articles are 20 years old, and the slightest suggestion could have far-reaching ramifications. (insert grimacing face emoji here) (followed by smiling face with sweat emoji) XD JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd also suggest waiting to see if anyone else has opinions before performing such a widespread change. From an informational standpoint: at maximum a series article has two specials (Series 7, 9, and 10). The Infobox can handle a third date and we'd just increment to (+2 specials) instead. The most "clunky" looking of these would probably be series 7 where'd we have to have 4 date listings total (25 December 2011, 1 September–29 September 2012, 25 December 2012, and 30 March–18 May 2013). Series 8 and 9 would require three date listings. It would also look clunky for an article like series 2 where we're listing something along the lines of (+1 special; +14 supplemental). If anyone wants to see mockups of what any of these Infoboxes would look like with the additional information, let me know and I'll leave them below. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

On Disney+ it is included as a special and also included in season 1. Which makes it both perplexing. However Call The Midwife includes their Christmas specials with their seasons as seen on Netflix and PBS (necessary example due to having Christmas specials). I realize someone will argue against it's inclusion in season 1 but I am just sharing what is on Doctor Who season 1 on Disney+. Not arguing with anyone just some two cents to the argument because it's a really good and interesting one due to differing opinions. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Historically, U.S. streamers have typically included all specials as a numbered episode (don't even get me started on HBO Max's "season 4, episode 18" or "season 7, episode 16" of Doctor Who). The past 13 series have been based on the BBC as the original broadcaster (along with other sources), which doesn't number any of the specials. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this not what we've done for every other series article with a Christmas special before, merging the special with the main table and separating them with the relevant headers? I could quote the relevant WPDW discussions, if needed. What's specifically different with Ruby Road and Season 1, or is it more the recentism of it that's made it become a focus? While it was produced alongside the series, it is not part of the series itself. I would disagree with the addition of the date to the infobox, but would support the removal of the supplemental episode count from the infobox too; this is why we list is as "–" for the series positioning. Yes, it's also part of the home media release, but we seem to be picking and choosing what "official" content we use, don't we? We need to list it because it's on the home media, but we ignore the big "Season One" on the cover? -- Alex_21_TALK 07:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Responding to this question first: What's specifically different with Ruby Road and Season 1, or is it more the recentism of it that's made it become a focus? It's simply down to the fact that my interest in DW has been around the new episodes enthusing me about the series again, and I wasn't an editor of the DW articles in the past. If that's 'recentism', I'm guilty as charged; but it's not that I'm intentionally ignoring the past. Simply, I saw this here first of all so made sense to comment here.

I'm inclined to agree with you on the infobox, with regards to my previous comments about infoboxes should present information simply and clearly. In terms of the article table, I think it could be more clearly delineated than simply listing it as "-". If it would help I could try using my sandbox to knock up some examples of how I think the table could be presented differently - though I must warn that I have tried already but struggled due to lack of experience with tables, so it may take me some time.

Broadly speaking, I'm aware that I'm dabbling in connected articles that go back 20 years or more, so I'm not WP:BOLDly changing too much. I think asking questions when there seems to be confusion or inconsistency is fair, and I don't think past decision should necessarily be a bar to making different decisions now if times and practices have changed. I hope that clarifies better when I'm coming from, at least. Best regards JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I know this discussion hasn't been widely publicized, but I'll BOLDLY remove the supplemental episodes from the Infoboxes if no one objects here in another day or two. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is referring to the "(+1 supplemental)" in the infoboxes for Series 11 onwards but I added them in to be consistent with the first 10 series. ButterCashier (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel like you may have misinterpreted the term "supplemental". In this context, it has always referred to mini-episodes, prequels, etc. not the holiday specials. For example, the "+1 supplemental" in Doctor Who series 4 is in reference to "Time Crash" not "Voyage of the Damned". This can be confirmed in articles such as Doctor Who series 5 or Doctor Who 2008-2010 specials which list supplemental episodes and not Christmas specials. Adding them in the format have is particularly a problem for consistency. They should probably just be removed altogether given the above discussion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

TCORR surely belongs to series 14 for a number of reasons, narratively and production wise, just like every other christmas specials. It's the episode 0 of the series Horyzon1963 (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The infobox should be reflective of what is covered in the article, so including the Christmas special in the episode table but not in the infobox doesn't line up. I think that the infobox should list the number of episodes as "x episodes (+x special(s))", like with the series 14 example above. By not including specials in the infobox's episode count at all, it could confuse readers as to what exactly the specials are. —Mjks28 (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with (+1 special). -- Alex_21_TALK 01:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Good Topic Progress

It looks like this was archived by the bot, so I'm copying it back over for the time being, just so those of us working on it can keep track of where we stand. I added {{DNAU}} until this hopefully succeeds in the distant future. At this time, 4 out of 10 articles have been promoted to GA. The remaining 6 have been nominated and are awaiting reviews.

Doctor Who series 14

10 articles

File:Doctor Who Logo 2023.svg

"The Church on Ruby Road"

"73 Yards"

"The Legend of Ruby Sunday"

"Empire of Death" (Doctor Who episode)

Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: You made quick work of that GAN! I had just gotten around to checking it out when I saw you got it passed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Being truthfully honest, I didn't even get a chance to touch the article. The reviewer took care of all the changes on their own. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Huh, that is the case. That seems a bit problematic. Im going to raise a few quesitons. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Now that I did do. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah i saw that so I threw something to the discord Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

In the case of a marginally non-compliant nomination, if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself.

It was point 4 of step 3, and most of the issues were minor (plus it seemed I was putting them across in a confused manner) or just points I needed clarity on, so I did them myself. It mostly consisted of moving around text and removing duplicated references. Let me know if I overstepped, I'll refrain from doing so from now onwards.

- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Note the word marginally. You then made 16 updates to the GA nomination page after opening it. I definitely also agree that this is problematic - you are the reviewer, it is your job to review. As a fledgling editor, I think we all request you edit some more to get used to Wikipedia's guideline and policies because you start taking on positions such as a reviewer. -- Alex_21_TALK 00:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to put some numbers out. The user is not extended confirmed. Less then 200 edits with 2 weeks of history Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Precisely my point. I'm not having a go at anyone or telling anyone they can't review a GA, but as an experienced editor, I'm simply giving advice to the new editor that they need to become familiarizing themself with Wikipedian expectations first before taking on other duties. -- Alex_21_TALK 00:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I have actually done more edits, but it was years ago and I have forgotten the credentials of that account. I am planning not to review another article for atleast a month, so like I'll gladly take your advice. If it matters, the 16 updates to the nomination page were all minor(adding done and remarking on why some change shouldnt be made after further researching) or replies; I was just plannning to make the change in broadcast at first, because I thought the nominator wasn't understanding me, but he edited on the GAN Talk Page instead of discussing it on the page itself, or on my talk page, so I became aggressive, which is unbecoming of a Wikipedian, and I overstepped and I'll refrain from doing so in the future. - DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally mean to make you upset. I, and it appears a few others of us, weren't aware of any of your previous edits on an alternative account. That said, I personally, didn't see the point in moving forward with your review until I could be sure that you were fully understanding of general MOS guidelines and the GA criteria. Notice that I didn't even directly ask for you to be removed from the review, I instead asked for an editor with more experience to give a second opinion.

It's not unusual for GA reviews to be open for 7 or more days, after they've been reviewed. So I didn't expect to be an issue to wait a few days for the discussion there to run its course while the GAR was on hold. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I know. I know, I brought that up to just say that I'm not an unexperienced user, despite what the <200 edits may say. And some of your issues felt like WP:IDHT to me: you mentioned the number of lines may vary based on screen size etc, when anyone who has ever used the Internet knows that, instead of assuming that I meant sentences; every sentence in that section was cited, except one, which was confusing and a bunch of other examples. You should have waited for my reply at least, or added a section to my talk page before asking for a second opinion. It's only slightly unusual for a GA review to be passed and closed on the first try before any remarks; and the article was close to that - it took around 20 minutes to correct, and most of that was just checking what was in the videos cited.

I didn't assume good faith, not thinking that my wording may have confused you; and you didn't, assuming inexperience/incompetence instead of confusion in wording. Can we leave it at that, discussing it all won't change anything? Have it be reassessed and/or have me warned for disruptive editing on ANI and/or something, whatever seems right? - DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Woah. First things first - and I realise I can't speak for everyone - but this is nowhere near an ANI issue, as far as I'm concerned. We're currently having a productive discussion here, and we all (I hope) realise that while we may have differences of opinion we are all acting in good faith and want the best for the Doctor Who articles. If anything I write past this point appears WP:BITEy at first, I assure you it's intended with kindness.

That said, regarding IDHT - my reading of this is that it applies in the case where there has been a long discussion and the editor has on multiple occasions stuck to a viewpoint that has been refuted by fact or that goes against community consensus. That's not the case here. You made your comments in your review, @TheDoctorWho made their comments, and... what was it? As noted elsewhere, this precisely the case where more discussion would have helped. "This was supposed to mean sentences in the article not lines on the screen." That gives the other users the opportunity for clarification, and either they will understand and act as appropriate, or they might think there's further discussion to be had.

For me - based on having observed a number of reviews over the last few months, both here with a number of DW article reviews, and over at GAN following one of their backlog drivers - one of the key things about a review is that it is in effect a collaboration between the reviewer and the user who has submitted the article for review. Again, I can't speak for others, but that's all I would want to see change here. Just a little more back and forth discussion where there are differences so you both have the chance to come to an understanding.

Please don't let this discourage you from Good Article reviewing, or from working on Doctor Who articles. Just slow down and let more discussion happen. If it takes two days instead of two hours to close a review, that's absolutely fine. Bear in mind also there is specifically a template for putting a review on hold for seven days to allow an editor time to fix issues raised. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

JustAnotherCompanion pretty much hit the nail on the head here so I won't repeat everything. This definitely isn't something I'd ever take to ANI nor is it something you'd likely even ever be warned for. Discussion is actually the preferred method of problem solving on Wikipedia, and I feel like we've actually gotten somewhere with said discussion. I'm assuming good faith, and taking the stance that you didn't intentionally bring us to this point. If it was something that you repeatedly did after this discussion, then yes it may escalate to warnings or ANI, but we're not even close to that point. You've definitely made some positive contributions to other articles in the project, and hopefully we can continue to collaborate in the future.

TheDoctorWho^Public (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree with both you and User:JustAnotherCompanion. And, yeah, I hope we continue to collaborate in the future, it's been a good year for the Wikiproject, let's make it even better. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)