# Talk:The Power of the Doctor

Should we add something about the rumour of the Thirteenth Doctor wearing other Doctor’s costumes? MarvelMovieFan (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Should we add David Tennant to the cast list (as we all know Jodie will “degenerate” into him)
MarvelMovieFan (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@MarvelMovieFan Except that we don't know that; no reliable source has reported this fan rumour. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
It’s been leaked all over social media. I mean, we even know that she regenerates on a cliff top MarvelMovieFan (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@MarvelMovieFan Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not social media leaks; this is described in much better detail at WP:RUMOR. Could they be true? Possibly. Are we going to cite them? No. -- Alex_21 TALK 12:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll add @MarvelMovieFan that you don't know any of that for SURE. It's not confirmed, it's just the subject of a leak. There's still possibility that she'll regenerate into Gatwa. Also you don't know what capacity Tennant is playing the role in. Is he the tenth Doctor again? Is he a new Doctor with the same face?  Panda815 (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

RT https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-2022-specials-release/ writes that broadcast may be on or around the centenary, which is 18th October 2022. John a s (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

We already know it's airing around the centenrary. We just don't know the exact date of the special yet. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
BBC One schedule shows no broadcast on 18th October (or 19th, 20th or 21st) so have to see if will be 22nd or 23rd https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl6p/2022/10/18 John a s (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Exactly. We wait for reliable sources, we don't just assume. -- Alex_21 TALK 22:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi TheDoctorWho
Regarding your revert of my edit on the draft, I would like say Walsh's involvement is not confirmed or been hinted at. The BBC has not confirmed it, and the BBC is the only primary source on the matter. Therefore any secondary source e.g. SFX is not reliable as their primary source cannot possibly be the BBC. My reference to a photo of Walsh on set (specifically being seen with John Bishop buying a coffee in Cardiff) is that several (unreliable) sources have used that to say Walsh is appearing in the special, and as SFX gave no indication of what their primary source is, I suggested it might be that or other unconfirmed rumours that he is appearing. As there is no indication that Walsh is appearing, I removed him, in contrast to Briggs, where I did a WP:IAR because he is likely appearing as the characters he voiced previously are confirmed to appear so there's a strong albeit uncertain indication he's appearing. I would also like to ask what the essay WP:VNT has to do with this? Thank you --TedEdwards 21:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I've self-reverted my edit for now. I always call on others to take part in WP:BRD and I should do the same, sorry for not discussing first. I have seen the photo of Walsh with Bishop and the numerous rumors surrounding that, including sources (some reliable) that base their claim around that photo. I personally felt this source was different because even if it didn't explain where they sourced their claim, it was not stated that it was "suspected" or "rumored" from the photo in question. It is likely Briggs will be voicing the characters, but to me it would still just be as much CRYSTALBALL as Walsh is/isn't. Likely isn't solid and the BBC have yet to verify an appearance for him either (anyone can pick up a voice modulator and record content). On top of that, with it remaining in the draftspace until the air date it didn't seem like there was much reason to remove it. Apologies for pointing towards WP:VNT, I had that in mind after this discussion about the 60th anniversary specials while I was typing. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Regarding BRD and VNT, it's absolutely no problem and thanks for the apology. Regarding Walsh's appearance, I may have been over-zealous in saying the BBC is the only primary source, hypothetical third-parties may offer evidence for Walsh's appearence e.g. a leak, or a photo of Walsh in front of the camera. However, I don't think being seen in Cardiff with another star only near the filming site really cuts the mustard in terms of proof. As for Briggs, I note I did a WP:Ignore all rules, as I believe Briggs will almost certainly voice Daleks and Cybermen because a) he has voiced the Daleks and Cybermen since 2005 and b) both those aliens are confirmed to appear in the episode, so I believe adding his name to the draft improves it, despite what I did being original research (specifically WP:Synthesis). It also was an attempt to end what-could-have-turned-into-an-edit-war between Panda815 and Alex 21, by finding what I thought was a reasonable compromise (i.e. adding Briggs with a caveat), as I agreed with both their edit summaries. Note I would not have done this if this was a mainspace article. I would also like to mention that Radio Times, as you probably know, has been used extensively as a source for cast members before the episode airs. Looking at their listings it appears that they will publish the cast list for The Power of the Doctor this Friday (October 14), and hopefully that will confirm Briggs will appear, and maybe shed light on whether Walsh will as well (unless the BBC is keeping his involvement a secret). --TedEdwards 19:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
It's possible the RT listing will confirm it, and if not the BBC episode listing usually also has a cast list that ultimately confirm or deny the appearance. I suppose the argument could also be made in reverse; if he does appear and we don't have a source until the episode airs no one is missing out on the information, because it still is in the draftspace. It's fine with me if you copy this discussion over, it's probably better over there anyways so anyone considering adding Walsh can read through the discussion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@TheDoctorWho: Thanks for your reply. While Nicholas Briggs casting is now confirmed, I am still pasting the discussion here so other's can contribute to the discussion about Walsh, as you've agreed to, so others can contribute.
Note to other editors: this discussion was copied and pasted from User talk:TheDoctorWho#Bradley Walsh in The Power of the Doctor so you can contribute to the discussion if you want to. It concerns whether an SFX source, which in an image says It's a story that will not only feature the Doctor's regeneration, but include Flux's Vinder, UNIT's Kate Stewart, Bradley Walsh's Graham, Lone Cyberman Ashad, the Daleks, and Sacha Dhawan's Master, is reliable enough to say Walsh appears in the episode. --TedEdwards 19:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

BBC article - perhaps to add under filming?  148.64.29.206 (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 Done U-Mos (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Should the section headed "Home Media" have links to give clues as to what it's taking about? For example what is a "home media release" and what is "region 2/B"? 37.18.140.179 (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex_21 TALK 09:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we should include a not about how the regeneration is more rainbow-y than usual and that how it was shaped like a butterfly 87.81.64.229 (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source stating how this is in any way notable. DonQuixote (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Please change credit of "Voice of the Daleks and the Cybermen" to "Voice of Daleks & Cybermen" to keep in line with the actual credits.
Thank you. Jack M E 01 (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The credits, as listed, are acceptable; the difference between "&" and "and" only matters when it comes to writing credits, specifically the WGA screenwriting credit system. Changing it now in this article would make no difference to a reader's understanding of the content. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I've just went on iPlayer to see Doctor Who (2023-present). Does this mean POTD is the finale to the revival series, or do we consider it a part of the mentioned series? BenGMan730 (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This is all still the revival series. The separation is just marketing. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Power of the Doctor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 08:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Sims2aholic8 (talk · contribs) 09:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Taking on this review. Will add my comments below over the next day or two. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8: I've addressed all of your comments bar a few of the redirects per WP:NOTBROKEN, and mainly just because I feel it flows better within the prose. Ready for a source spot check whenever you get around to it!  TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
@TheDoctorWho: Thanks for the speedy updates, and for your patience as I got through this review. Totally understand where you're coming from re. NOTBROKEN. Source check now complete. Overall pretty solid, however I have some concerns regarding the use of CultBox and DoctorWhoNews, as well as Twitter/X. Please do let me know if there's something I don't know about these sites that allows them to pass WP:RS, or if you can swap them out for other refs that would be great. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sims2aholic8: CultBox and DoctorWhoNews were recently determined unreliable as self published sources in discussion on the project talk page. I have replaced all uses of both sources in this article (including ones you didn't mention). ShowBuzzDaily (previously ref 74, now 68) should be okay as another EXPERTSOURCE. The site was run by Mitch Metcalf who was a high-ranking television executive (source to confirm: [1]). TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that, and thank you for finding suitable replacements for the Cultbox and DWN references and tweaking the prose accordingly. Happy to retain the ShowBuzz Daily ref per your EXPERTSOURCE notice. I've checked over all the new refs and happy they all satisfy RS. That covers everything outstanding for the review, and I'm pleased to pass this now for GA. Great work! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


### Lead
Pipe "British Broadcasting Corporation" to BBC  Done
Add a comma before Bishop  Done - assuming this was supposed to be after Bishop rather than before?
Can you explain the use of "reoccurring" for the Cybermen and Daleks? As far as I am aware, "recurring" and "reoccuring" have slightly different meanings, and it feels that the former would be better in this context. I can understand though if you want to avoid repeated use of "recurring" in this paragraph.  Done
Infobox looks good!
Update piping to Nicholas II, Mel Bush and Doctor Who specials (2022)  Not done - Names in the INfobox credited within the programme


### Plot
Would "bullet train" be better served by being piped to Shinkansen? If the scene is clearly set in Japan then I would say yes, but I will defer to your discretion on this.  Not done - scene takes place in outer space, that link specifically refers to the railway in Japan
I would consider either removing the piping on "Russia" per MOS:OVERLINK, or alternatively changing it so that "1916 Russia" links to Russian Empire  Done
Pipe "Rasputin" to Grigori Rasputin  Done
Another potential OVERLINK on "Naples"  Done


### Production
#### Development
Images look good!
Pipe to BBC here as well  Done
Remove piping from "co-executive producer", since "executive producer" is already linked in the same sentence  Done
Either:
Add piping to the first instance of Cyberman in the plot (as only "CyberMaster" has been piped), and remove the piping to "Cybermen" and "Daleks" here; or:
Repipe "Cybermen" and "Daleks" to Cyberman and Dalek and add piping to The Master (Doctor Who), which would still be permissible under MOS:REPEATLINK as it is the first section after the plot  Partly done - added a WL to The Master, there are multiple Cybermen and Daleks in the episode hence why the links have been pluralised.
Remove the apostrophe from "Doctor's"  Done
I would change "its title" to "the episode's title" just to avoid confusion, given that the episode itself hadn't been the subject for a few sentences  Done


#### Casting
Great use of imagery here!
Put a comma after "Resurrection of the Daleks"  Done
I think piping on "classic Doctors" would be good, to provide context for anyone not aware of DW history. Not sure where would be the best place to link to though, perhaps somewhere within History of Doctor Who?
Add piping to Yasmin Khan (Doctor Who), Fugitive Doctor, Kate Lethbridge-Stewart, and Graham O'Brien, as the first mentions outside of the plot (if going with the second option above)  Done
Place Doctor Who Magazine in italics as the title of a work  Done
Repipe to Guinness World Records, place italics only on the "Guinness" and put "world record" in lower case, since in this phrasing the "world record" part is referring to the actual record and not the title of the book  Done


#### Filming
Image is good
Fix to Boney M. (missing the full stop here)  Done
Repipe "green screen" to Chroma key  Not done - WP:NOTBROKEN
Repipe to Roath Lock (article title doesn't have the "Studios")  Not done - NOTBORKEN


### Release and reception
Infobox looks good


#### Broadcast and home media
Redirect on Doctor Who: Series 13 – The Specials (soundtrack) needs corrected, as the section title has been changed  Done
Missing a "the" before "Curzon Bloomsbury theatre"  Done
Pipe "CTV Sci-Fi" to CTV Sci-Fi Channel  Not done - NOTBROKEN


#### Ratings
Pipe to Appreciation Index  Not done - NOTBROKEN


#### Critical response
Missing a "the" before "Edinburgh TV Festival"; also pipe this to Edinburgh International Television Festival  Done
I think you're missing something at "that Whittaker's "feels bittersweet"."  Done
Add a comma before "although she criticises"; also there's some tense shift here from past to present which needs correcting  Done


### Notes
All good here!


### References
Copyvio looks good at 19.4%
Not part of the review, but if you have the time later feel free to check the order of the refs to place them in ascending numerical order (totally optional though)
Reference spot check:
1 Y
3 Y→N content is good, just a bit wary about how reliable this source is (moreso based off of the WordPress logo in the tab); willing to AGF on this though, since it's quoting an article in DWM
4 and 5 Y
10 Y
12 and 13 Y
16 Y
18 and 19 Y
25 Y
27 Y
29 Y
34 Y
35 Y→N same issue as above, but also willing to AGF if you believe the source is reliable; also work misspelt as "CutBox"
38 Y
40 Y→N another CultBox ref
48 Y→N same as 3, willing to give AGF since it's quoting DWM
53 Y
61 Y
63 Y
65 Y
69 Y
70 Y would prefer a better source (WP:RSPTWITTER), but since it is from Akinola I'm willing to allow per WP:EXPERTSOURCE
71/72/73 N can you explain how this site doesn't violate WP:RSSELF?
74 N→Y this also feels like a WP:RSSELF violation


### External links
Happy with this section too