# Talk:The Star Beast (Doctor Who episode)

Hi editors
Just posting some urls for advance reviews of this episode as they probably should be used in the article. I'll try to write them up in the article properly as well.

Empire
Dexerto
Radio Times
Hello!
BBC News
Cosmic Circus
HeyUGuys
Inverse
GamesRadar/Total Film
Collider
And the Rotten Tomatoes link is here
--TedEdwards 18:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Can someone add them? 2A00:23C7:6989:2701:C96:15F:5868:380B (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I have found one source saying she is, . Nothing else so far but mabye a case of the special came out two days ago, and there hasnt been enough discussing the character.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)

It's not always easy to define a companion. If it's someone who travels with the Doctor, she hasn't done that yet. Too early to say, really.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
She is not credited in the opening credits, thus that is why she is not listed as a companion here. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Noele Clark doesnt appear in the credits of Journey's End (Doctor Who) yet hes listed as a companion  Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Apart from primary sources, such as Russel T Davies, we need reliable secondary sources commonly and consistently labelling her as such. Sources such as DWM started calling Clark as a companion for that. DonQuixote (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop using redirects in hatnotes per WP:HATNOTERULES.  The very first basic rule of the guideline states Linking to redirects is typically not preferred. --woodensuperman 11:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

And for all those mentioning WP:NOTBROKEN, this is not the relevant guideline, as hatnotes are not mentioned in this section.  Funnily enough, we should be deferring to WP:HATNOTE as the default guideline for hatnotes! --woodensuperman 11:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Linking via the redirects looks like the better option for readers in this case as the names are clearer and more concise than the section links. I'm not sure what the origin of the HOTNOTERULES guideline is, but it does explicitly say "exceptions can occur". Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Exceptions can apply to every guideline, doesn't mean we should without a very good reason.  With the section links you know exactly where you are going, with a redirect in the hatnotes, it looks as if you will find an article on the subject, which falls foul of WP:SURPRISE! --woodensuperman 13:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The hatnote implies nothing about an article, only that the reader will find the content they are looking for at the target. The Star Beast (Doctor Who comic) and The Star Beast (Doctor Who audio drama) make that clearer than Fourth Doctor comic stories#Doctor Who Weekly and especially List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish#The Comic Strip Adaptations. There is no WP:SURPRISE violation here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense at all. How can a redirect with a hidden target make something clearer than a link to the actual target which shows exactly where you are heading??? We have guidelines for a reason. --woodensuperman 14:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree with Woodensuperman here. The full text of that guideline line-item is "Link directly to other articles; do not pipe non-disambiguation links. Linking to redirects is typically not preferred, although of course exceptions can occur. Links to disambiguation pages should always end in "(disambiguation)", even when that version of the title is a redirect.' I.e., it is making an exception for "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects to make it clear to readers they will be going to a DAB page. While it arguably leaves open the possibility of some other exceptions being plausible, that doesn't mean any exception someone randomly wants to make can be "enforced" by someone with what amounts to a WP:ILIKEIT reason. These two particular redirects are confusing and unhelpful. They're being imposed to make the hatnote "look pretty", but they don't at all identify where the user will be taken, and the result is bewildering. It should be clear to the reader that they are going to a section on a series of things in an another article, in which they can expect to find what they are looking for. When you mislead them into thinking they're going to a dedicated article about what they are looking for, it just looks like an error. This is pretty much the sort of SURPIRSE that is meant at that page. And yes, NOTBROKEN has nothing to do with hatnotes; it's about running prose in article text. I would make an exception if we could expect eventual actual articles at either of "The Star Beast (whatever)" redirects, but this is extremely unlikely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Frankly, having seen the latest edits, and subsequently followed every link in the hatnote out of curiousity, I find I have but one question - do we even need a hatnote here?
The link to the comic is not useful because it's just a list with the comic's title in it. There's no further information about the comic at all. Likewise the radio play, it's just a name in a list. As for the disambiguation page, I don't see the need for it; I can't see how anyone could accidentally end up here when they're looking for another Star Beast.
Hatnotes are useful when they help you find the actual article you're looking for. In this case, there are no articles. They are not useful. So - can't we just remove it and let the article body link to the comic and the radio show? JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@Woodensuperman HATNOTERULES does not state that at all. Cheers. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Furthermore, there was no consensus in this discussion. There was agreement by one editor, again based on the now-reworded guideline; an agreement between two editors that never interacted is not a consensus. Can you state and quote which guideline or policy the hatnote current violates? HATNOTERULES supports redirects, so another would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Alex_21 TALK 21:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@Woodensuperman Pinging you again, as you seem to have forgotten this discussion. Kindly note the points above. Thanks! -- Alex_21 TALK 23:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
@Alex 21 Have you given any thought to my suggestion above that the hatnote could just be removed entirely? Certainly when it comes to the comic, this article has far more to say about the comic than the article linked in the hatnote does. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd say the links and articles need to be improved; given that this article has extra disambiguation with "episode", there needs to be some sort of content in this article that explains what other Doctor Who media titled The Star Beast there are. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:NAMB, you're probably right, no hatnote needed. --woodensuperman 18:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:HATNOTERULES did say that, now it just says Link directly to other articles, which is basically the same thing, i.e. directly=no redirect.  --woodensuperman 11:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
And directly after, it details how to link redirects. You seem you have missed that part, accidentally or selectively. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't actually make sense as the disambiguation guideline doesn't actually cover this specific situation and contradicts itself.  You seem to be selectively ignoring the clear initial statement regarding liking DIRECTLY to other articles. --woodensuperman 07:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion on the guideline; discuss that at the relevant talk page. Linking to redirects remains acceptable; no other guideline or policy has been brought forward that strictly bans it. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Except WP:HATNOTERULES which says "link directly to other articles".  Please could you point out the relevant part of WP:Disambiguation which specifically states that redirects are allowed in hatnotes. --woodensuperman 08:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
It does not say "do not link to redirects". Again: can you please provide a guideline or policy that bans it?
Per HATNOTE, With regard to linking to redirects, follow any applicable rules in the disambiguation guideline. The redirects linked in the lead follow all applicable rules in the disambiguation guideline, thus abiding by HATNOTE. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
"Link directly to other articles" means "do not link to redirects".  There are no applicable rules at WP:Disambiguation for hatnotes.  I think the recent change to the guideline has created this issue where the first clause is subsequently confused by the later clause.  I can't find the discussion mentioned in the edit summary, but this should probably be reverted and discussed further. --woodensuperman 10:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I've found the discussion and as Bagumba points out in this edit, "there really isn't much relevant at Wikipedia:Disambiguation w.r.t. redirects and hatnotes". --woodensuperman 10:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
The recent change linked clearly explains the change. Simply reverting an update to a guideline or policy, just because you don't agree with it, is poor form. I'd recommend posting on the talk page of the relevant article change first. -- Alex_21 TALK 10:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
But if you read the discussion, it is clear that what was intended by the guideline change is not to allow what you have changed here.  We should still be linking directly as per the guideline WP:HATNOTERULES which is way more relevant to this specific case. --woodensuperman 10:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
We should be doing what is best for readers. In this case, as I explained months ago, the best thing for readers is to link to the redirects. More generally, we should normally link to redirects with possibilities (so that readers are taken to the expanded content when it exists) or when the redirects are clearer (e.g. more concise) than an article+section title unless that would be surprising ("redirect" → "article title#redirect" is not going to be surprising in most cases). Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
And as I and SMcCandlish explained then, what is best for the readers is that they see exactly where the link is taking them so that there is no WP:SURPRISE, rather than the target being hidden behind the redirect and readers expecting a full article on the subject rather than a tiny mention in a list article. --woodensuperman 15:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
As I said at the time the hatnote implies nothing about an article, only that the reader will find the content they are looking for at the target. which remains true. If all we have is a tiny mention in a list article then the question is whether there is value in the hatnote at all. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Well as there is barely any information at the targets, it probably would be best if readers didn't waste their time expecting it.  And in any case WP:NAMB probably applies. --woodensuperman 15:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
What Thryduulf said. And I'll reiterate this: It should be clear to the reader that they are going to a section on a series of things in an another article, in which they can expect to find what they are looking for. Don't mislead them into thinking they're going to a dedicated article about what they are looking for, or they'll simply become confused. A desire to make a hatnote "look better" to someone for subjective reasons isn't any kind of rationale. Hatnotes are informative navigation aids, not dècor.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC); rev'd. 02:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Just to confirm, though - is this an actual guideline, or standard, or just an opinion on the guide? Indeed, what Thryduulf said: "the hatnote implies nothing about an article, only that the reader will find the content they are looking for at the target". -- Alex_21 TALK 07:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: But Thryduulf is advocating use of the redirects, not the bare links. --woodensuperman 07:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
What I noticed Thryduulf write was "We should be doing what is best for readers" and "we should normally link to redirects with possibilities". But these are not redirects with possibilties; we're never going to have stand-alone articles about these trivial things. I missed, somewhere in this wall o' text discussion, Thryduulf also saying "In this case ... the best thing for readers is to link to the redirects", with which I don't agree (i.e., my position on the question has no changed). While it is generally true that "'redirect' → 'article title#redirect' is not going to be surprising in most cases", these are not like most cases. Most cases are redirects to sections (with headings that are or contain the word/name in question); but these are instead redirects to entries buried in embedded lists, which is suprising and confusing, and the trivially simple, easy, and obvious fix is to make it clear from the start that the link is to an entry in another article, not trick the reader into thinking they're going to a dedicated article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Both links have been adjusted to link directly to the anchored entry within the relevant lists (the latter already did). Now the redirect location does indeed include that are or contain the word/name in question. Problem solved. -- Alex_21 TALK 22:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
They're still not linking to section headings though, merely a single entry in a list, so it is still surprising, and no, the problem is not solved. --woodensuperman 10:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
As the 'Writing' section in this article has more information about the comic and no less information about the audio drama, and given this discussion has been rolling on for some time, I feel I must return to my suggestion of simply removing the hatnote from the article. If I were looking for information about the comic and followed the hatnote, I would be annoyed to have been sent to a page with less information than the one I first arrived at. If the hatnote is removed, the 'Writing' heading could be amended to mention the comic so it would be more obvious glancing at the page contents list where to find this information. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
You're quite right, there is more information here than at the redirect links, almost to the point that maybe those links should be pointing here instead!  And per WP:NAMB, is "(Doctor Who episode)" actually ambiguous? --woodensuperman 10:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, following on from my nod to WP:NAMB above and adding weight to the argument, the official title of both the comic and the audio drama is "Doctor Who and the Star Beast" in both cases, not just "The Star Beast", so it is even less ambiguous. --woodensuperman 13:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Following this template reversion, asking here: Is The Star Beast a regeneration story? I say no. The Doctor is fully regenerated when the episode begins, it does not immediately follow Power of the Doctor, and the regeneration process is not discussed. U-Mos (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Shortly after I saw The Meep, and how the others reacted to it, I couldn't help thinking of Galaxy 4. Lowlyeditor (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Star Beast (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 19:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll be able to review this in the next 7 days. — Bilorv (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


### Initial comments
The major sections are all there and there's lots of positives with the number of reliable sources and groundwork that has been laid. I think the areas to focus on are "Plot", "Production" and "Critical reception":

Per MOS:TVPLOT, the plot needs to be cut down from its current state (around 600 words) to 400 words. I think most or all of this can be done through rewording rather than loss of information. Two examples: "The UNIT squad and the Wrarths arrive, and a fight breaks out between them" could be "The UNIT squad and Wrarths begin fighting at Donna's house" and "The Doctor and Donna (the latter of whom is starting to remember her past)" could be "The Doctor and Donna, who is starting to remember her past". Look for strings of words like "the latter of whom" that don't provide information to rewrite.
"An apparently crashing spaceship" – Is it not a crashing spaceship? Done
"explains his confusion" – "explains" sounds like he has an answer; if not then maybe "describes" is better. Done
"In July 2021, the BBC announced that Chris Chibnall, who served as executive producer and showrunner of the series since 2018, would leave the series after a run of specials in 2022" – This isn't obviously related to this episode. How about framing it like: "The episode was the first 2023 special, following the departure of executive producer Chris Chibnall and Thirteenth Doctor star Jodie Whittaker after the 2022 specials"? Done
Does Rose have a specific age (in the episode or initially intended) other than "teenager"?
Nope
Is Rose non-binary and using "she/her" pronouns and if so, can this be stated (and sourced)?
I couldn't find anything
The "Production" section reads at the moment a bit too much like a list of press releases. I think interviews with cast and writers would help. Russell T Davies talks here about what made him, Tennant and Tate interested in doing Doctor Who again. A topic sentence for this might look like: "The episode was the first in which Tennant and Tate reprised their roles as the Doctor and Donna Noble since [X]".
Some interviews that might prove useful in discussing themes of transgender and disabled inclusion: [2][3][4][5]
I think the specials were the first premiering internationally on Disney+ and Russell T Davies says here that meant a higher budget. Done
Without wanting to get into excessive details or minutiae, I wonder if this commentary contains any major revelations (if you use it, give rough timestamps for each inline citation so it's not very hard to verify). The first few minutes talk about filming constraints due to the Queen's Jubilee, which would be good to summarise. Same idea with this (shorter) "Behind the Scenes" video.
Unfortunately as am in America I can not access any BBC iplayer content. Though I will take a look at the other sources
The "Critical reception" section gives me a flavour of what is out there in response to the transgender themes, but not these other key features: Davis/Tennant/Tate returning; the plot; the set design and directing etc. I'd like to see some more reviewer comments grouped by theme. The lead says critics "praised Tennant and Tate's reintroduction to the series along with the introduction of Rose, a transgender character" and "some were critical of the resolution to the metacrisis storyline" – maybe this could be the basis of two paragraphs? Done
Are there any (mainstream, professional) reviews that compare the episode to the comic?
A few would this go under critical reception? [6],[7],[8] and a couple others from a quick google search. Would it go under Writing or Reception I could see an argument for both?
I think Den of Geek and Popverse could be used in "Writing". The Bleeding Cool source seems to take heavily from Doctor Who Magazine, which would be the better source to use if you can get access. — Bilorv (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"had now reached 9 million viewers officially" should just be "had reached 9 million viewers". Y
"A novelisation of the episode ..." – This sentence needs splitting into two or more sentences (or rephrasing).  Done
"over the portrayal of transgender" – This adjective is missing a word, like "[transgender] themes". Done
"the i" (in the ratings box) should just be "i". Done
(Not part of the GA criteria.) The references don't have a consistent formatting style e.g. saying the publication name "BBC" rather than the URL "www.bbc.com"; most website names are linked but not all are. Done
I'll look at source spotchecks, image licenses and copyright checks after the above are addressed. Formally this is  on hold but that might be for longer than seven days as long as progress is being made. — Bilorv (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: it's been 10 days and I see lots of small points have been fixed but there's still significant work to do on "Production" and "Plot" as well as some other areas. Would it be better to work on these issues with no time pressure outside the GA process and then resubmit it when it's ready? — Bilorv (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes that would be great as something unforseen has happened in my personal life and I can't focus on two GA's currently  Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 Fail for GA at this time, noting that a lot of the work towards GA standard has been done, but there's still outstanding issues that affect criteria #1 and #3. — Bilorv (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Star Beast (Doctor Who)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 08:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 12:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs)
Gonna step a bit out of my usual foray and take this one on. Will try to hit this up in the coming days. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


### Six GA Criteria
1. Article is well-written.
2. No OR, most of the info is cited in the article. 
3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the episode.
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 two fair use images with proper rationale.


### Lead
-""The Star Beast" is the first of three hour-long special episodes of the British science fiction television programme Doctor Who, marking its 60th anniversary." I feel the latter bit could be reworded to clarify these are a part of three interconnected episodes to celebrate the 60th. 

Their not really interconnected past the recurring characters.
-"whose memory he was forced to wipe after her human mind became overwhelmed by the Time Lord knowledge in "Journey's End" (2008)." To anyone not associated with DW, this sentence will make no sense. I'd add some additional context for clarification.  Done
-I'd hyperlink transgender in the lead.  Done


### Plot
-Looks good


### Production
-Is the mention of the "radical" change confirmed to be in reference to The Star Beast? The article isn't clear with that.

It seems to be in relation to the era itself and not the star beast.
-The paragraph referencing the "fourth era of production" is entirely uncited.  Done
-Hyperlink pounds.  Done
-The image of Beep seems to hail from the strip "Party Animals" instead of The Star Beast. I'd amend the caption to just reference his design in the comics, or change the image to one of his appearance in the original Star Beast strip.  Done
-"having previously directed every series finale of Peter Capaldi's era," This is very unclear to those unfamiliar with the series.  Done

Listed the Capaldi finales.


### Broadcast and reception
-The critical reception feels a bit light. It's enough for the purposes of this GAN, but I'd like it if more sources could be added, if possible, since the amount of reviews feels small in comparison to other episodes I've seen. 


### Home media
-Looks good


### Overall
-Decently solid. Needs some touch-ups but I'm feeling confident that this can get to GA. Let me know when the above are done, and ping me if you have questions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: I've adressed the concerns. Anything else? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@OlifanofmrTennant one more thing, I'd merge the first three paragraphs of production together, amending sentences for flow where needed. The paragraph splits feel a bit unneeded.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Pokelego999 I've made the merge. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks good. Fine to pass, though as stated above, work on the Reception section going forward if more sources come up. Great work.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: I think you did something wrong becuase the bot isnt putting the GA symbol on the page. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Not sure why it wasn't showing up but I've gone ahead and added it manually. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not at all keen on the infobox having the episode show as being preceded by two different episodes. That to me doesn't work and breaks the chronology. Either the episode is preceded by the previous episode, OR it is preceded by the special (which is then preceded by the previous episode). Wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff may work for the Doctor, but for Wikipedia we should be trying to be as clear as possible shouldn't we?
(I realise there are going to be other episodes/articles this comment will no doubt also apply to; I've admittedly somewhat arbitrarily ended up putting it here because this is the article that's on my watchlist.) JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It is included because Destination Skaro isn't a proper episode. See the page for Survival or Nightmare in Silver Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)