User talk:TheDoctorWho

Your GA nomination of Line of Duty series 2
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Line of Duty series 2 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 73 Yards
The article 73 Yards you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:73 Yards for comments about the article, and Talk:73 Yards/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mr Sitcom -- Mr Sitcom (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Line of Duty series 2
The article Line of Duty series 2 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Line of Duty series 2 and Talk:Line of Duty series 2/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Dot and Bubble
&spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Line of Duty series 2
The article Line of Duty series 2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Line of Duty series 2 for comments about the article, and Talk:Line of Duty series 2/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK for 73 Yards
Valereee (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Toymaker
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Devil%27s_Chord&oldid=prev&diff=1230864688 yes, I linked the serial page instead of the character page, because there is no character page. Anyone wanting to learn more about the Toymaker will have to go read the serial page. In the future, if you don't like an added link then I would prefer to see the link edited to point to a better page (if it exists) instead of simply reverted. Banaticus (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe that linking to an episode/serial when the text refers to the character would be a slight case of WP:EASTEREGG. If there is no character then there should be no link. You said it yourself, there is no "better page" so it was removed altogether. The only "better page" would be a character article. Not to mention, if EASTEREGG wasn't in play here, the fact that the Toymaker has appeared in more than one episode is more reason not to link to a specific serial. The Giggle that specific text references only occurred in "The Giggle" and not in "The Celestial Toymaker". The Doctor Who  (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Destination: Skaro
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Destination: Skaro you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OlifanofmrTennant -- OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Good Topic
Hi, just wanted to drop you a quick message to say that I read your reply to the points I raised, and the only reason I haven't (and likely won't) respond directly is because I'd only be restating my original position, which as noted I'm not strongly wedded to anyway. Will see what (hopefully) other editors make of the situation. And I suppose, in a way, I've helped you make your argument for the path you want to take stronger. best regards JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Doctor Who SDCC Panel response
Hi there, I appreciate your message letting me know what the truncated edit summary was supposed to say. Rather than 'rules lawyer' or pull out a bunch of different links to other WP policies or guidelines, let me try taking a different tack first of all:

What do you see happening after the SDCC panels occur? Will the article be updated to say 'The following panels happened and this exclusive news was revealed'? Fair enough if there's something notable - [name] chooses this panel to announce they're leaving, or the like. But what if no news is revealed, and "will appear on a panel" simply becomes "appeared on a panel"? Does this now mean we can list every convention and panel that people made appearances on?

That's why I didn't see anything notable about this information and removed it. It read, and reads, like a publicity announcement or cruft. I'm not going to press the issue too much, other than by possibly posting a version of the above on the article talk page, as SDCC will happen and be over soon. But I would be surprised if anything happens at the panels that justifies keeping them mentioned.

I hope that better explains my thinking. If you do wish me to pull out the bunch of different links that ultimately led me to using the one that following the links suggested to me was the most appropriate, I could do that yet XD best regards JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Either way, yes. If exclusive news is revealed, we'll add it. If not, we'll just change it to past tense. People appearing on a convention/panel doesn't inherently make it notable, so no, we don't list every single one. That would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, we should (and do) write about things that receive significant media coverage, such as the Doctor Who panel(s):, , , , , , , , , , and are all independent reliable sources that covered the information. There's also more beyond just those. If these sources weren't available, I wouldn't have added it because 1) it couldn't be proven, and 2) it wouldn't establish the notability.
 * One could make the same argument about anything else. "Gatwa and Gibson promoted the series in New York City; advertisements were streamed on billboards in Times Square, and interviews were featured on Good Morning America, ABC News and Late Night with Seth Meyers." What makes that statement notable? Do we cover every advertisement in NYC or every person who ends up on GMA? Of course not, there's no way we ever could. There are certain circumstances where it makes sense though, such as in an a section on an article that's specifically covering the promotion of a television series. By excluding it when there is such widespread international coverage, we would be failing our readers. The Doctor Who  (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Big Brother 26 (American season)
I have a feeling we're going to be dealing with a lot of B.S. this season. And I don't mean just on TV... Bgsu98  (Talk)  19:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I sadly concur. With the lack of being able to pause/rewind feeds I can only imagine the kind of chaos it will bring. The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who Newsletter: July 2024
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)