Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Mass Formatting changes

(edit conflict-changed text of this message, the reply was to the original message)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally, there's a relevance issue here. O'Mara's Rani has been the only screen version for decades, and as of now we have another version appearing under an alias, and a third version who has appeared in one scene. Likely to change, of course, but there's WP:NORUSH. As the current article is almost entirely about O'Mara's version of the character, it makes sense at this point for an image of the two new Ranis to accompany the section about them, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Rani_(Doctor_Who)&oldid=1291030079 as I have suggested].

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

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

:I'm not opposed to multiple images for the Rani given we do the same at The Master (Doctor Who) and The Doctor since each incarnation is a notable, differing depiction of the character that we don't have free use for. I agree with the NORUSH sentiment, and I do feel it'd be better off in the article body than the lead given that, unlike the Master, the Rani's only had one unique casting change (Technically two, but they're both in the same series), so including the change in the body would make sense instead of cramming the lead. [https://x.com/bbcdoctorwho/status/1923815969782366614 This] might be a decent photo of both together if you crop Conrad out, and there's also a photo [https://www.doctorwho.tv/news-and-features/archie-panjabi-joins-doctor-who-as-legendary-character-the-rani here] that can be used.

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

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

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

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

:::::[https://images2.imgbox.com/70/30/clgSYC8I_o.jpg Here's] the full res of the second image option linked above, if needed (I know we still need to reduce to the minimum pixels required, but probably better to start with an image that's not already half cropped by a headline).

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

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

::::::@TDW, I don't see the need to include both of them (considering they are the same person) in a single promotional photo. If you click on the [https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2023/doctor-who-anita-dobson-michelle-greenidge link] i used, you will see that this is the first image available of Anita Dobson as Mrs Flood. Just like Derek Jacob (who was also a disguise) and the Fourteenth Doctor, I believe that Mrs Flood deserves a special mention of her own. ?Silencedoc¿ 22:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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