Talk:Doctor Who series 15

Daily Mirror/Variety reports

@Alex 21: As for your various reverts of many edits all relating to a report first made in the Daily Mirror, before being remade and "confirmed" in Variety, I thought I'd explain why, despite understanding before my reverts that Variety is generally considered as reliable, I removed various references to Millie leaving. Before I start however, while I bring up the Daily Mirror because they were the first to say they talked to a source on the prouduction, it's not relevant to this discussion as Variety would be a primary source in this case judging by what they've said in their article. As I understand it, Variety, while they use the word "confirm", they seem to use the word to mean they found a source that said the same as the Mirror's source. They have given no indication on who the source is, so it could a) be the same person as the Mirror's source and b) impossible to say whether the source is reliable or not. I'm in no doubt that Variety checked the source was who they said they were (i.e. I'm sure the source works on DW production or is otherwise closely connected with the show), but that does not show the source is a trustworthy person. Therefore this leak is all rumour until official confirmation comes from a press release from someone like the BBC, Disney, RTD or Bad Wolf. Hence I believe we should not reference it on Wikipedia. I would also point out if there was a new companion, it would not be long into filming before it has to be announced as the actor would have to be seen in public.

While this message is to Alex 21, any editor should feel free to participate in this discussion and hence it's on a article's talk page. --TedEdwards 00:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't many edits, it was four concerning the same topic, but sure. It is not up to us to question a reliable source's sources. Variety wouldn't be a primary source, it would be a secondary source; we don't base content only off of "official" reports, as that would mean we are relying primarily on primary over secondary sources, where Wikipedia articles are required to be based in the majority on the latter. While I'm not sure if you've read it, WP:VNT is the textbook essay on why this information has been included. Nonetheless, I do agree that we don't use the word "confirm", we use "set to" or "expected", to show the more hypothetical language over absolute language. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

First thing's first, I would personally consider my 4 contentious edits to be "many" edits. Just how I use the word "many". However, it is absolutely Wikpedia's job to question sources and ensure they are reliable for the specific fact we want to use to verify the information we want to put in the article. Hence I don't believe that Variety source is reliable, because it clearly implies its source is someone working on Doctor Who who told them, which I don't think makes the source reliable. However if the community judges the source is reliable, I will just have to grin and bear it. As for VNT, that says you can't put something in you know or believe to be true unless you can verify it (probably with a secondary source), but I'm not adding anything to the article. --TedEdwards 00:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we do question the sources themselves and their contributors, and since we've determined that Variety is a reliable source (hence its usage in over 64,000 articles), there's no further need to question it. The sources for the sources, however, are irrelevant; what it "implies" is merely an opinion on the source - do you have any real and debateable proof that this specific source is not reliable, or is this discussion based purely on belief? VNT concerns "verifiability not truth", if it's verifiable, whether or not you think that the topic is real and has/will happen (i.e. the "truth"), then it has a basis for inclusion. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I don't believe these rumours are necessarily untrue, and so the reason I want to remove the reports has got nothing to do with what I think is true or not, so VNT is irrelevant. You say [the community has] determined that Variety is a reliable source, but this isn't quite true. In fact no source is considered always reliable, because clearly any major publication will make mistakes etc. (though that's not what the issue is here). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says it's considered a generally reliable source, so it is still possible to argue against using a Variety article as a source. Which I have done, since the reliability of the primary source is questionable without knowing exactly who they are and Variety offers no indication on their trustworthiness. Your reply also suggests I used the word "implies" in a way that I didn't, I used it to mean Variety makes it obivious the source works in or with Doctor Who production (I mean who else could they be?) without saying it explicitly. I did not use it to mean "the source implies its source is unreliable". --TedEdwards 01:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, you're basing your argument against Variety on the primary source. Wikipedia bases itself on secondary sources and those secondary sources' interpretations and analysis' of primary sources. So I ask two questions: (again,) do you have any real and debateable proof that this specific source is not reliable, or is this discussion based purely on belief and "potentialness"? And following on, which guideline or policy is not being confirmed to if Variety says "a source confirmed"? -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Just gonna chime in here really quick. WP:SECONDARY quite literally states "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them" (bold emphasis is mine). So in this case:

1. Variety is one step removed from the event as the writer nor their editorial board are employed by the BBC/Disney/Bad Wolf, and
2. They are basing their fact on the quote taken from a primary source, therefore they are
3. "Relying on primary sources for their material."

So even if their source is the exact same as the Mirror's it wouldn't necessarily matter here because Variety is generally reliable. With this in mind, the Variety source is, from my understanding of WP policy, fine for use here. For what it's worth, @U-Mos: used the same source over the other yonder, I figure they may also want to chime in. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Alex and TheDoctorWho entirely on this, so don't have much more to add. Quite frankly, given The Mirror is a WP:MREL source and the coverage around its report in other reputable spaces (Deadline Hollywood, Radio Times), even without Variety I'd be inclined to seek a consensus to include the rumours/reports as such rather than ignoring them. Per WP:GREL, one thing that could be discussed is how to incorporate the information, e.g. while I don't see an issue with having Sethu listed in the table at List of Doctor Who cast members, one could argue that it is better currently to only mention her and Ruby's exit in prose, in line with the "expected to be introduced" in the lead on this page. U-Mos (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Alex 21: TheDoctorWho U-Mos I just wanted to make some final points. I see I erroneously described Variety as a primary source at one point, the production member who told them about Sethu is the primary source, but the sources U-Mos described as "reputable spaces" are using that Variety article as their primary source. I'm not sure if TheDoctorWho picked me up making that mistake, but I would like to clear anything up if necessary.

It is true that Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, but unlike what Alex said, the reason for that is not because they are more reliable than primary sources. IT is because as WP:Secondary says, Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. This is part means secondary sources often use multiple primary sources to come to a conclusion that Wikipedia can use. Reliable secondary sources also help establish notability of a subject. TLDR secondary sources are used more than primary sources but not because secondary sources are automatically more reliable.

TheDoctorWho seemed to refer also to something I said about Variety's source being the same as the Mirror's, so I'll make that point again that while Variety can say a presumed Doctor Who production member (regardless of whether they're the same as the Mirror's source) told them about Sethu etc., just because a generally reliable secondary source uses this production member as a source, it does not make the primary source reliable. Hence I believe either mention of Sethu should not be included in the article, or if it is, make clear it is a rumour, albeit a notable rumour. So one thing I'm personally not happy about and I change if I could do so unilaterally if remove Sethu from the infobox.

Further on that point, what can be reliably sourced if need be in the article is someone told Variety about Sethu, as Variety can be trusted to report on that accurately. What can't be ascertained is whether the primary source made a mistake, or has decided to lie to the media, or whether they are right about what they're saying, because unless Variety gives some indication as to who exactly the primary source is i.e. what's their job in Doctor Who, no one can say whether they're reliable or not. So no, I can't "prove" the primary source is unreliable. But no one, unless they know who the source is, can "prove" they're reliable. And Variety has not proved to readers of their article they're reliable as they've not said who they are. So this is all still rumour.

Also Alex, you asked me which guideline or policy is not being confirmed to if Variety says "a source confirmed"?. I unfortunately don't understand what you mean by this, so if you could reword that question that would be great. --TedEdwards 20:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doctor Who series 14 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doctor Who series 14 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doctor Who series 14 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)