This page is within the scope ofWikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide toDoctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who
Is CultBox reliable guys? I have only seen 2-3 writer names there, they don't have a "About Us" page, or barely any other social media, and it seems to be a blog.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk)08:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who's used it quite a bit inDW related articles, I have no question to its reliability. I can't speak to its back end processes or editorial standards, though.TheDoctorWho(talk)21:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have doubts regarding its reliability. It essentially appears to be an entertainment blog, withno obvious editorial policy or oversight, and no list of writers. It seems like a great aggregator of information fromother sources (Doctor Who Magazine, radio and television interviews, etc.), but I would be cautious about using it too much as an immediate source on Wikipedia.–Rhain☔(he/him)22:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I mentioned the reliability, I strictly meant that what they say typically ends up panning out. I understand however, and do share, the potential concerns about it's lack of editorial standards (theFAQ page seems to suggest that you can write for the page by filling out their contact form). The website'sfavicon is also theWP:WORDPRESS logo, and the fact that some of it's aggregation information (as mentioned above) are from unverified Twitter accounts, which could cause further concerns.
I feel it's also worth noting that depreciating this source would likely take some time as I believe it's more widely used than Doctor Who News, which we've been depreciating since earlier this year. A lot of the information we do use this source for (filming blocks, directors, filming locations, etc.) is published elsewhere less frequently. Not saying we shouldn't depreciate just based on that, just that it's something to plan for.TheDoctorWho(talk)03:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more that we do not use CultBox as a source from now on- I have made edits on past episode articles, and alternate sources are usually present, though sometimes difficult to find. Discontinuing it would help in not having to replace it again and again. Another reason I asked about it is because if CultBox is determined as un-reliable, it would be easier to remove if alternate refs are already present, instead of being added alongside it. The info is correct, so it can stay until it is gradually removed, just like DWN.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk)06:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of an aside yet sort of related question: should we include a disclaimer in our suggested sources bank discouraging the use of certain sources? Primarily fansites (Like Doctor Who TV) and blogs (Such as Cultbox, which seems to have an unreliable consensus so far).Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)14:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Make sure to avoid using content fromuser-generated websites, such as fansites like Doctor Who TV, which has content generated entirely by fans with no form of credentials, and blogs from websites such as CultBox, which are personal opinions of the authors, who may or may not have credentials. Content from these websites written by authors who can be verified as having experience, whether that be by being a journalist, a known academic or by being a topic expert, are permitted to be used on a case by case basis."
Would this be good to add? I believe we've settled that CultBox is unreliable for now, so unless there's any objections, I feel it's best we leave it at that and work to remove CultBox sources from articles.Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with the proposed wording. The only thing I might suggest is noting the distinction betweendoctorwho.tv anddoctorwhotv.co.uk. As I said on the series 14 review page, both websites typically list "Doctor Who TV" as the|work=. The former is acceptable as a primary source while the latter isn't.TheDoctorWho(talk)17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Maybe something like "like Doctor Who TV (not to be confused with the official website)" in a hyperlink. Alternatively, we can swap a different fansite in, like Blogtor Who or smth similar.Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)18:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's a shame because I appreciate CultBox's coverage and think they do a good job, but their standards are just not enough for the purposes of Wikipedia's verifiability.Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)01:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the side of it being reliable, as nothing has proved it otherwise, that must have been a miscommunication. I don't think I've seen a single policy quoted in this discussion. --Alex_21TALK02:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PerWikipedia:NOTRELIABLE: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, orhave an apparent conflict of interest." (Key bit here is the lack of editorial oversight, due to a lack of notable editorial policies on the site). As this appears to be a blog site, it also falls underWikipedia:SELFPUB. This technically isn't the same thing, but even if we were to deem the CultBox brand name reliable, it would still failWikipedia:NEWSBLOG due to not having professional writers. Let me know if I'm incorrect in any assessment here and I'll correct my argument.Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it questionable, not unreliable, and it's far from self-published, as that refers to work that is (evidentally titled) published about themselves.
I recognize the consensus here, but my view is simply that this WikiProject is causing its own eventual doom on creating future articles. If you find yourself relying on only "official" sources, I wish everyone the best in developing articles concerning anything behind-the-scenes. Series 16 (Season 3, 2026) may be a very short article indeed.
All guidelines discussing questionable sources state that sources that are questionable should not be used, with very few exceptions. If there's reasonable doubt as to our ability to use the source, then it's better that we don't use it at all.
An example I'm curious about, the Audience Index scores sourced through Doctor Who TV. What's the plan with that, now that the source is "unreliable"? Keep it unsourced, or mass remove important content? --Alex_21TALK03:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure myself since I was barely involved with that discussion, but if the info can't be sourced, it can't be sourced. That's about as plain and simple as it gets. Remove unsourced content and find replacements where feasible. If the information doesn't exist outside of unreliable sources, then there's not much can be done. I am uncertain what replacements exist since, again, I was not involved much with that discussion, but I'm sure someone else involved more with it can give a more concrete answer than me.Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)03:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that it's disappointing the source has been determined to be unsuitable for use, as well as that it may lead to the removal of content. I mentioned both of these things in my original response above. However, and more importantly, we are providing a disservice to our readers by using sources that aren't up to par.
"it's far from self-published, as that refers to work that is (evidentally titled) published about themselves." - is also an incorrect assessment. Wikipedia's articles onself-publishing even states that itis the publication of media by its author at their own cost, without the involvement of a publisher. The term usually refers to written media, such as books and magazines, either as an ebook or as a physical copy using print on demand technology. It may also apply to albums, pamphlets, brochures, games, video content, artwork, and zines. Web fiction is also a major medium for self-publishing. Self-publishing merely means that it's published by the author, not that it's about the author. This differs from an author writing for say Radio Times, where it's published by someone other than the author. Even if said wrote an autobiography for Radio Times, it still wouldn't be "self-published".TheDoctorWho(talk)03:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're using actual Wikipedia articles as definitions of policies now? How unfortunate. The removal of relevant content will continue to prove detrimental, but "providing a disservice" does seem to be the consensus here. --Alex_21TALK03:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want other sources,Merriam-Webster defines it as "to publish (a book) using the author's own resources", while theCambridge Dictionary defines it as "to arrange and pay for your own book to be published, rather than having it done by a publisher". This is a pretty clear-cut definition all things considered.Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)03:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, while I may be misinterpreting it, I believe thatWP:SPS confirms my understanding of it, I just felt the Wikipedia article provided an easier to understand definition.WP:SPS is a policy and it says "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, podcasts, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources." Nowhere does it say that self-published sources only consist of autobiographies, because the two terms are not mutually exclusive. I'd like to again note howWP:WORDPRESS links to the aforementioned policy and that CultBox'sfavicon is the Wordpress logo.TheDoctorWho(talk)04:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AI has not been released for series 14 wasn't released on the Doctor Who fan site either though. And as for CultBox- the sources are either given, or are tweets or photos from the official channel, or by fans. You are acting as though CultBox creates info of its own, whereas we would just need to go one source deeper in most cases.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk)08:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is adiscussion about CultBox on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, y'all can give your thoughts there too, for a wider community consensus instead of just a local one, because it seems a wider consensus might be added.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk)10:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Piper also has 31 interwiki which would be a chunk towards bonus points. If both are promoted to GA within a short period of time it could make for a multi-hook nomination.TheDoctorWho(talk)03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91: Not sure if we're still trying to maximize main page content for the week mentioned? I noticed you suggested the LoE 2005 revival for the Monday before the anniversary. I plugged in theTorchwood LoE page for the following Friday. Assuming both get approved (I'm honestly not sure if they prevent similar content from appearing too close together there like they do at TFA), we'll have commandeered both TFL spots for that week.TheDoctorWho(talk)05:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it will get approved, but that would be very cool. Oli is working on Eccleston, I think, I'll help there. And also try to get it on 'On this day'.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk)07:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find anything despite having checked through the last 30 issues of DWM. Given that it's unsourced, I have commented it out of the table for the time being. The "missing" content was probably never released by the BBC, what can I say. I cannot see the issues affecting anything, the table looks normal. If you have issues with its FL status due to any of this, you can bring it to the talk page ofWP:FL.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk)13:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for checking! That's a lot of DWM's to check! I've already explained what the HTML/CSS formatting issue with the table is, so now that the FLC has passed, I'll go ahead and reintroduce that column so we can have correctly-formatted tables and sourced data. --Alex_21TALK20:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was hard going through all those-the way Chibnall transitioned to Davies made it such that they mostly only gave info about Tenannt and Ncuti. I would say you shouldn't add back DWM, but I don't care much either way, as long as no one complains atWP:FL or something.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk)20:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion Oli. I removed no such info nor took part in any such discussion. Unless you have an alternate idea to fix the faulty content? --Alex_21TALK20:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A great idea to fix the faulty content-force the BBC to release the info officially, given that it was already leaked "unofficially".
You also took no part in saying anything to the contrary, when you know that was a concern, and my having said that I did that, on the talk page of the list, which I pinged you in.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk)20:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You pinged me in a discussion? News to me. A great idea to fix faulty HTML/CSS is to not make it the table code inaccessible in the first place. --Alex_21TALK20:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about changing the code to try to make it fill up the space. But I didn't want to argue with you for the changes, especially when I don't even know/see what actual changes it actually did, bcs thr table looks the same to me.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk)20:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21: made mass changes to episode articles by removing links to minisodes and removing them from the Doctor Who episodes template. As far as I can tell this change was not discussed anywhere. This effected (by my count) around 100 articles, a change of this size should be discussedQuestions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are the minisodes broadcast episodes? Have I completely removed them, or have I moved them to{{Doctor Who supplementary episodes}}? (Also, by my count, itaffected was 44 articles; 22 concerning the infobox, and 22 updating the episodes to supplementary episodes.) Stating that edits must be discussed by you to be accepted is also avery concerning development. --Alex_21TALK04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is your response to everything basically- "my edits are fine, yours are not. Collaboration- what is that, gatekeeping and being passive agressive is the best".DoctorWhoFan91 (talk)19:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I edited 22 episode articles. Counted them myself. I'm glad you're perfecly fine with it. If supplementary mini-episodes need listing in infoboxes, then 1) why are they not listed at the primary episode articles, and 2) why areall of the supplementary mini-episodes not listed in the infoboxes? --Alex_21TALK21:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict-changed text of this message, the reply was to the original message)Question- does anyone think we should add thatWP:Civil POV pushing is prevalent on this WikiProject somewhere onWP: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 thereassessment 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}