Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who

Disclaimer on the WikiProject

(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)

Good article reassessment for The Sarah Jane Adventures

The Sarah Jane Adventures has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Image at Files for Discussion

A file pertaining to this WikiProject, File:Twelfth Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg, was listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion and add your opinion on the matter. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Please note that the above file has been closed as delete; see the policy reasoning as to why. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Noting this discussion, another editor has put up four files for discussion. DWF91 (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Notifications for RS/N

There are discussions relevant to this WikiProject on WP:RS/N on the reliability of Cultbox and Doctor Who News Page. You can read the discussion and provide opinions in order to achieve and strengthen consensus as regarding this pages. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Given the direction the doctor who news page discussion is going, of it being declared unreliable for the second time at rs/n- can we add a comment to the series 15 and any subsequent series article to not add dwn links to the appreciation index until the bbc releases it officially? DWF91 (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd wait for final consensus for now. If final consensus determines it unreliable, then a note wouldn't be a bad idea. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the consensus to form- I just asked this now, bcs the prev discussion on it at rs/n said the same things, and the wikiproject takes some time to come to a conclusion/consensus due partially to our low numbers here. DWF91 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

A ref needed

Does anyone have "The Big Finish Companion Volume 1" by Richard Dinnick? I need a source to cite the directors at The Monthly Adventures articles, and said book has the info for every story until 2010. DWF91 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Help needed

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)

Should alien species use the plural or singular forms?

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)