Talk:Doctor Who series 14

WikiProject Doctor Who has an RfCBEFORE

WikiProject Doctor Who has a local discussion for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Svampesky (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That is a dead end. What is the point of keeping this thing up when there was no consensus from over there? without any update? This is a conversation ender and sucks attention off this to that. I suspect a lot of attention went over there. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Season 1 VS Series 14

New Discussion for the suggested move based on the name of the current season 2A00:23C6:7C0A:3D01:60C3:29D1:851:335F (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so the decision to remain as series 14 has absolutely baffled me.

it seems that decision was reached even though the argument for changing it was valid and greatly agreed.

The funny thing is, the picture used for “Series 14” is the dvd cover with literally has the words “Season One” written on the picture.

i think it would be wise to reopen the discussion and potentially have another vote which is why i created this topic.

Of course. Please keep it friendly and dont spam it.

i look forward to hearing everyones thoughts

- Joey :) 2A00:23C6:7C0A:3D01:60C3:29D1:851:335F (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: At least wait more than a month before rehashing it. I mean, six months is probably polite. DonQuixote (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

While I am in full support of renaming it Season 1 (yes, the identifying infobox image is quite the conflict), I agree with leaving it be for now. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, six months and season 3 will be in the process of being filmed and there will be a page made by then for it and once it's done, there will be more arguments about changing that title.

To put it another way: If not changed before the end of this year, then we will have season 2 titled as series 15 on Wikipedia during the airing of the season two and that's just not right. At all. The last time this hold on the name change was done, season 1 was airing and it still wasn't changed. This change must be done.

If this sounds aggressive or demeaning, please do tell me. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: I think the lead stating: "The marketing for the series refers to it as "Season One", following the production changes and the acquisition of Doctor Who's international broadcasting rights by Disney+" is a more than acceptable compromise, though maybe for the reader's sake it would be better to improve on this and embolden Season One like on other Wikipedia articles where the subject has more than one name. This whole Season 1 (1963), Series 1 (2005), Season 1 (2024) situation is far too confusing for the casual layman and there's no point in confusing it further by renaming this article Doctor Who season 1 (2024) or whatever it'll become.

Also, this new series isn't really a reboot to the show like Series 1 in 2005 was, but instead a direct continuation of the 2005 reboot as its 14th series. There hasn't been a massive generational 16-year gap between this new "Season 1" and the 13 seasons or series before it (Power of the Doctor and Star Beast are only 1 year apart) like with the last season of Classic Who in 1989 and the 1st of New Who in 2005, and neither has there been a significant change in the show's formula like there was from 1989 to 2005. The 15th Doctor's era has been a direct narrative continuation to the 14th and 13th Doctors' eras, with the destruction of Gallifrey by The Master, the Flux, the Timeless Child, the Doctor being fostered by Tecteun and the Time Lords, etc all remaining major plot points of this era of the show if the specials and this series are anything to go by. This is different to Series 1 in 2005, which was a reboot with a whole new lore (The Time War, The 9th Doctor, new origin stories for The Master and Cybermen, etc) and, at first, barely any narrative link to the original show that ran from the 1960s to the 1980s. Gallifrey wasn't even mentioned by name until Series 3 for example, despite the new Time War lore that came with the reboot, and neither were the previous incarnations of the Doctor. The narrative gap between Classic Who and 2005 wouldn't even be filled and explained until the 50th anniversary of the show as a whole 8 years later.

It's for these reasons that I don't support renaming this article to Season 1. This is the 14th series of the 2005 reboot so the current article name fits the bill. While marketed as Season 1, it is not the first season of a brand new iteration or reboot of the show like Series 1 in 2005 was, and changing its name to Season 1 would cause lots of confusion due to three series of the same show (1963, 2005 and 2024) sharing the same name. This can be easily avoided by keeping the current article name, while also keeping the part of the lead which explains that the series and its successors are marketed as Season 1, Season 2, Season 3, etc due to the Disney+ deal, a suitable compromise for this situation in my opinion. JPowellOBrien (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is why it's not being moved, unfortunately. Regardless, this isn't a "support"/"oppose" !voting discussion. (Regardless, nobody can provide a Series 14 indentifying image for the infobox.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to argue against it being too confusing for the average layman. The count has been reset. It is as simple as that. No confusion to behold. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the obvious solution here is to not see "Season 1", "Season Two" as an indexed numbering of seasons, but instead to see it as a name for the season.

The first season of this show is called "Season 1", which came out in 1963. The 23rd season has two names, either "Season 23", or "The Trial of a Time Lord".

The 27th season is called "Series 1", and finally, the 40th season has been titled "Season 1", a repeated name, but technically allowed.

My suggestion therefore, is that naming the page "Doctor Who Season 1 (2024)" isn't a suggestion that it's a reboot, it's simply following the American Horror Story format of naming its season pages after the names of the seasons. With the year added simply because disambiguation is required given the 1963 season of the same name.

Is this an pedantically semantic justification for change? yes absolutely. But a legitimate one I think that reconciles the discrepancy between reality, and what the showrunners have decided to name the show. The lede can even be worded in such a way "Season 1 is the 14th season of the rebooted show, and 40th season of the franchise overall". I'm no lede expert so I leave the specific wording to better editors. El Dubs (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure I follow the concern here. Has it not been discussed (or perhaps I missed it) that Season One is not the same as Season 1? The marketing refers to this current season as "Season One," using the word “one,” while the 1963 season uses the numeral "1." I don’t see this as a problem—it’s simply a matter of different conventions being used for two distinct seasons.

In terms of the broader discussion, it seems this distinction is being missed, and the ongoing confusion over naming conventions might be based on that. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to focus on clarifying that Season One (2024) is distinct from Season 1 (1963), rather than suggesting they’re the same? In fact, there’s really no need for year clarifiers in the article names. CuriousWanderer42 (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who series 14/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 04:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 15:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Will get to this sometime in the coming days. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the character.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses one fair use image with proper rationale.

Lead

-Looks good, but would it be possible to include info on Reception?

Episodes

-"Maestro appears, revealing themself as a child of the Toymaker, with similar powers around music." Clarify this a bit since we don't know the Toymaker's powers and it isn't clear if it means the powers come out around music or if Maestro's powers are similar to Toymaker's music ablities

-"to investigate the woman they have seen throughout time." This woman is not acknowledged before now, so some clarification on her exact role would be beneficial.

-"UNIT already know her: tech entrepreneur, Susan Triad, whose staff Mel has infiltrated." You could probably drop the colon and first comma and write it as "UNIT are already aware of her as tech entrepreneur Susan Triad..."

-"The Doctor realises they can find Ruby's birth mother –" I feel the dash can be substituted with an "and" or something similar

-Make sure to put years of release on the hatnotes here

Casting

-Looks good

Production

-I feel the self-described descriptions of the episodes in the Writing section isn't too necessary since they're summaries of things we know already. Additionally, they're randomly split down the middle into two paragraphs. If this information is kept, it should be kept together.

-Maybe include an image of Murray Gold in Music?

Release

-Looks good

Reception

-Looks good

Overall

@TheDoctorWho: -Overall comment: Make sure to be consistent with whether the source links are hyperlinked or not. I've noticed a mix of both as I've been going through this.

-Citation 1 is Doctor Who TV, which was previously determined by consensus to be unreliable. Please seek a replacement source for where it is used.

-Overall this is looking very good. Patch up the above and I'll do my spotcheck.

Not done with these quite yet (nearly am), just adding a quick to do list for myself with some other things I noticed so I don't lose my place for when I pick this back up:

• Replace Doctor Who TV
• Replace The Doctor Who Companion
• Swap Doctor Who Unleashed cites from cite web to cite episode
• Fill in bare Amazon reference
• Saw at least one RT source with no author
• Address SHOUTING in reference titles
• Replace/remove TikTok source
• Replace Daily Mirror (if possible)

I should hopefully be able to wrap this up tomorrow! Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: I think I've addressed all of your concerns. Just to clear up the distinction, it appeared that there were cites to both doctorwho.tv and doctorwhotv.co.uk within the article. Both of these listed "Doctor Who TV" in their |work= fields. The first one is a commercial channel published by the BBC, so while it is a primary source, I'm assuming it's still considered okay for use? I have replaced or removed all uses of the second one. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho The primary source should be fine for the purposes of a GA. The latter source was the one I had issues with. Have you patched up the other sourcing issues above? Was going to take a closer look at the sourcing during my Spotcheck, so I do just want to make sure this is all resolved before I begin. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Yes, I took care of it today! TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho Spotcheck. As there are a lot of sources, I'll be reviewing twenty sources at random to verify the content is accurate.

Sources reviewed: 126, 30, 150, 131, 57, 83, 69, 56, 68, 167, 27, 216, 166, 18, 153, 88, 123, 193, 206, 100.

-Cannot access Source 30, 69, 88, 123. A brief search indicates their contents seem accurate.

-Source 131 and Source 100 use CultBox, which is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:WHO. A CTRL+F through the source bank indicates another 15 usages of it. I will not fault you for this since the discussion came up during the review period, but I will likely put this on hold until the discussion resolves itself.

-What is the reliability of Ref 57 and 59 (Winter is Coming), Ref 17 (The Nerds of Color), Ref 128 (Nerdgazm)?  Done

-Ref 27 doesn't state the exact debut of Kate, though I am unfamiliar on if that date needs to be cited or not.  Done(by rewording)

-Ref 18 only states that "Also keeping the show grounded in the present day are Gatwa and Gibson, a young and giddy pairing giving big Gen Z energy, even if Gatwa, 31, is slightly older."  Done

-Ref 193 and Ref 196 is a multi-ref; Wikipedia:DEXERTO applies here. Is there any particular reason this source is being used over anything else? Its use should be shied away from if possible.

-Ref 206 is having a cite error, so I can't view its contents.  Done

Other things from a brief glance over the source bank:

-Ref 23 uses Wikipedia:METRO, an unreliable source.  Done

-Any particular reason only one of the Magazine citations uses SFNs?  Done(used cite mag)

-Ref 175 needs a space.  Done

Nothing too major here barring the CultBox discussion, so I feel this should likely be fine once the above are patched up. Will be placing this on hold until the CultBox discussion is resolved. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I saw the review and decided to help, despite not being nom or co-nom (hope that's okay). Replaced refs 57 and 59, 17 is def unreliable, Nerdgazm seems reliable, based on their editorial policy and about us page. Replaced ref 23, fixed ref 175, and replaced one of the cultbox refs. The sfn was me, I was trying to fix the magazine cites a few days ago, but seems like TDW fixed it in a diff way in the meantime, sorry about that. (edit- fixed some more) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Using the page history, I'm assuming ref 18 at the time was in reference to the USA Today source? There's a quote in there from Gatwa that says "I would hope that my Doctor is a Doctor for all generations," Gatwa says. "Energy is what fuels the Doctor. We describe the relationship (between the Doctor and Ruby) as energetic and fast, which feels quite youthful." TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't really specify "Gen Z" though. The comment on a more youthful duo is accurate though and I see no problem keeping that in the article, but the Gen Z one, unless cited somewhere where it's specifically stated, is probably better off removed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I still plan on finishing this up, hopefully sooner rather than later. Three of my GAN's were being reviewed at the same time, so I had been focusing on those, but the other two were recently passed. If you don't mind leaving it on hold for another week or so, I'll try to wrap this one up. It'll take a minute to hunt down replacements for CultBox or remove what can't be cited elsewhere. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho sounds good! I'm more than fine with waiting a bit since you've been very responsive at this discussion and the article is in a primarily good shape. Best of luck with your other GANs! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho and Pokelego999: I knew where to find issues of DWM, which had been where CultBox had sourced most of their info, so I decided to replace them where possible. Only two refs remain, one which would require OR and insta posts to replace, and another which is mentioned in an even more unreliable source. So I would suggest just letting them remain, as the info is accurate enough, should exception can be made. Also, would like to apologise if I messed up anything trying to replace refs, though I have tried not to. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 is 109 verified by 108? Regardless, I'm personally in the boat of not allowing unreliable sources, especially if their own sources are unreliable. Instagram posts should be fine if they fall under PRIMARY, but if the info can't be sourced without a degree of doubt, I wouldn't use them at all. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No, each clause is refed by diff ref, and also describes different episodes. I don't think the two refs can be replaced then. I'll leave it to TheDoctorWho to see if he can find anything, or what he wants to change/remove as it is his GAN. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I found something for the first one and replaced it. But for the second, it's like 3 insta posts(all from 26 April 2024) just to source the info- whose urls I am not to find. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: I've addressed the last Cultbox source, the two Dexerto sources, and the Gen Z thing from above. I believe that should wrap up the last of your concerns. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho should be good to go. Happy to pass! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Ncuti Gatwa's commitments on Sex Education caused two "Doctor-lite" episodes of Doctor Who during the programme's fourteenth series?

• Source: https://bleedingcool.com/tv/doctor-who-doctor-lite-episodes-are-important-need-to-feel-special/

• ALT1: ... that Susan Twist portrayed seven different roles in the eight episodes of Doctor Who's fourteenth series? Source: https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-susan-twist-theories/
• ALT2: ... that for two months Ncuti Gatwa was filming both the fourth series of Sex Education and the fourteenth series of Doctor Who at the same time? Source: https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-ncuti-gatwa-sex-education-tv-100-exclusive-newsupdate/
• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by TheDoctorWho (talk), Alex 21 (talk), and DoctorWhoFan91 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC).