User talk:Spectritus

Editing Hello. You're editing the user talk page of Spectritus. Please make your edits friendly!

Please put your message (if you have one) in the current month section and put a title as sub-heading 2. Thank you! Spectritus (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raymond Llewellyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newport.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll fix that straight away. Spectritus (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Centenarians associated to Doctor Who has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperMarioMan Okay. Thanks for the info. Spectritus (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not, under any circumstances, remove a reliable source from a Featured ARticle again, for a twitter post. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake It's the official Twitter of someone who worked for Lucasfilm. We can't keep this source if it's reliability is contested. Also, it's literally the only source that says Elaine Baker appeared in the film. All others say Marjorie Eaton. Spectritus (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a twitter post by a guy not involved in any way with the film, who asked someone else, and any other source that says Marjorie Eaton cites that twitter post which doesn't even seem to exist anymore. The other is a 300+ well researched book that dealt directly with those involved. It's not contested, if you have a problem with it start a larger discussion at a relevant forum. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake Can't we just settle this by citing both actress separated with either "and" or "or"? Spectritus (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, because one is always traced back to a Twitter post and the other is a respected piece of work. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake May I suggest that we say that Palpatine was physically portrayed by both actresses until the debate is settled. Spectritus (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no debate, one is a twitter post by a guy who asked around, the other is a well respected and thorougly researched book by a renowned author who wrote detailed books, including original notes, scripts, and photographs, for multiple films. Do not do it again Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake It's literally the only source that says Elaine Baker appeared in the film. All others say Marjorie Eaton. And why would someone who worked for Lucasfilm lie about this? Spectritus (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spectritus. Thank you for your work on Doctor Who Access All Areas. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Needs independent sources that cover THE TOPIC OF THE ARTICLE. (not about Dr. Who) It has none. The "episodes" section is about Dr. Who episodes

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000 Okay. The episodes section is about Doctor Who Access All Areas episodes. It's a behind the scenes show, so there's one episode for each episode of Doctor Who series 11. Spectritus (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this guessing that that might be the case. What matters for wp:notability is in-depth coverage by independent sources of the topic of the article. And being, as I understand it, it's about a set of YouTube videos, reviewers will be looking for this. I don't want to go too much off on a tangent getting too centric on the table, but the point there (if I read it correctly) it just lists info on the Dr. Who episodes that it was attached to. I didn't do any NPP disposition, and planned to just leave it for another NPP'er to review it at a later date. If you add at least some independent sourcing (and hopefully some article content derived from them) I'd probably be less strict than the average NPP'er and would be happy to look at it again if you prefer and ping me. Either way, happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000 Okay. Thanks. I'll see what I can do. Spectritus (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never restore content removed citing BLP concerns without discussing on the talk page and gaining consensus. Edit warring to restore disputed content contrary to WP:BLP and WP:BLPSOURCES is a quick route to a block; you've been blocked for this previously and have apparently learned nothing from it.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo As I've already told you, that website was accepted in other articles. There's therefore no reason not to accept it in Mary Peach. Spectritus (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo May I ask how long is the block? Spectritus (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) First, you're not blocked. I noted that you had previously been blocked for WP:BLP violations and edit warring, and that you were demonstrated the same behaviour. Second, the fact that a poor source was used at some point in the past in no way means it's acceptable to use it in perpetuity. The correct response would be to go back and replace the poor source with ones meeting WP:RS, not to continue using the poor source.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo Okay, thanks. Once again, I apologise. Spectritus (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo I've just read what you wrote on the noticeboard, and I apologise. I acted foolishly. I promise I will not make the same mistake again. Spectritus (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hercule Poirot (film series) has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Northernhenge (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spectritus. The new category Category:Hercule Poirot (film series) appears to duplicate Category:Films based on Hercule Poirot books so isn't needed, unless they are more different than they look, in which case please discuss on the comments link above. Thanks! --Northernhenge (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Northernhenge There's a difference. Category:Films based on Hercule Poirot books lists all the Hercule Poirot films, while Category:Hercule Poirot (film series) lists only films and soundtracks from the film series directed by Kenneth Branagh. Spectritus (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Please add that to the discussion. Maybe the name of the category needs changing, and you could suggest that there too. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Northernhenge Okay. Done. Spectritus (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you could put Category:Hercule Poirot (film series) into Category:Kenneth Branagh. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Northernhenge Done. Spectritus (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo Thank you. Again, I apologise for my behavior. I may have overreacted a bit because of the frustration. Spectritus (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The information will eventually be published in a reliable source that have a reputation for reliability and fact checking and the article can be updated at that time. It's more important to get it right than get it first.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo Okay, thanks. I understand. Sorry for the problems I caused. Spectritus (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing the date format for Canadians, it's not only Americans that use the MDY format, as you've been stating in your edit summaries. The standard is to use the existing MDY or DMY on an article is strongly associated with a country that is strongly associated with said format. See formats listed at List of date formats by country. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Okay, sorry. I didn't know Canada used that format. Spectritus (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I understand the intentions were nothing but good. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from inserting POV-driven, polemical asides in Wikipedia. Over the past 20 years, RfCs have been initiated in both English Wikipedia and French Wikipedia to cancel the demonym American and substitute an alternative in English and French. Each time, the effort was rejected by a landslide. There is no "dispute" worthy of the mention, except among a small minority of ideological editors. This is because the term American remains standard usage in media and publications across the English-speaking world. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mason.Jones I understand. I would just like to clarify that there are a lot of people around the world inside and outside of Wikimedia who believe the use of the term "American" to designate inhabitants of the US is improper. Especially South Americans and Italians. I think this deserves at least a note like the one I made. Spectritus (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spectritus -- The term American is treated differently in the Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking worlds, but this article is "United States" in English Wikipedia. Historical disputes and resentments in other language groups don't merit special mention in the infobox of the article "United States" in English. In the U.S. and throughout the entire English-speaking world, the term is standard usage and undisputed. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mason.Jones Okay. I understand and I'm sorry. Spectritus (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Donald Pelmear has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability found.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Pelmear is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Pelmear until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lewis Alexander is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Alexander until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume III, Issue I — March 2025 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who One hell of a newsletter. Geronimoooo! Apparently this newsletter the queen of outer space... wait... no, sorry; that's Belinda! Swashbuckle your seatbelts because this newsletter is full of information regarding recent happenings in the Doctor Who WikiProject. You'll also find updates on the upcoming series and elsewhere the expanded Whoniverse. Series 15 The fifteenth series of Doctor Who is set to begin this Saturday with "The Robot Revolution" on 12 April and will conclude seven weeks later after "The Reality War" airs on 31 May. It will once again be accompanied by a new series of Doctor Who: Unleashed. Draft articles for all eight episodes have already been created, the links to which can be found here. New novelisations adapting the first three episodes of the series are set to be released on 10 July. Recent Article Regenerations Since the last Newsletter, we've had a whole heap of quality content added to the Project. The articles Thasmin, "Joy to the World", Vislor Turlough, "Space Babies", "Legend of the Sea Devils", Weeping Angel, Doctor Who series 13, Pyramids of Mars, "The Legend of Ruby Sunday", "The Power of the Doctor", The Twin Dilemma, "The Husbands of River Song", "Demons of the Punjab", Doctor Who Live, "The Return of Doctor Mysterio", and Attack of the Cybermen have all been improved to GA-level quality. List of Torchwood episodes and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005-present) have been improved to FL-level quality, while the Doctor Who specials (2022) and Doctor Who series 14 Good Topics have been successfully promoted. An additional good topic covering the series articles from 2005–present has been nominated and is currently receiving feedback. Though content creation has slowed in recent months, content improvement should hopefully see an increase as series 15 ticks ever closer. Future Project Goals The WikiProject will once again be working in collaboration to complete a Good Topic encompassing the series and its related articles. Any contributions will be greatly appreciated. Several editors have planned upcoming work for Doctor Who-related character, episode, and performer articles. More information, as well as where you can find out how to help, can be found it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Goals. We Want You... To Help With The Newsletter Due to the departure of previous newsletter contributors, the Newsletter is beaming out a message from Stonehenge requesting your help. If anyone would like to help actively contribute to the Newsletter's content updates, please let us know, as we are willing to accept anyone who is interested in helping with writing the Newsletter. We'll all stories in the end... make sure the newsletter is a chapter in yours. Intelligence Bulletin from the Subwave Network An additional novelisation for the fourteenth series adapting "The Legend of Ruby Sunday" and "Empire of Death" written by script editor Scott Handcock is also set to be released on 10 July. Christopher Eccleston and Billie Piper are reuniting as the Ninth Doctor and Rose for a new series of Big Finish audio dramas due to be released from this August. A special hour-long episode of Doctor Who: Unleashed documenting Doctor Who's 2005 revival process is currently in production. It is set to be released later this year on BBC iPlayer in the UK and internationally on YouTube to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the revival. The blu-ray box set for Doctor Who season 7 collection was made available on 3 March. In breaking news, David Tennant almost didn't touch this. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (Talk) If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conference League.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot Thank you. Spectritus (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Forest Green Rovers F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National League.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I see that you've contributed to a lot of pages relating to Doctor Who. I too am a fan and have amended/improved pages related to the franchise as well as created pages for people associated with it.

Earlier today, you placed a citation needed tag on Pik-Sen Lim's page regarding her marriage dates to Don Houghton. Beforehand, I updated his page including references mentioning about how he moved to Naples, Florida in the late 1980s and remarried just a few months before his untimely death. Just wanted to clarify.

You appear to be obsessed with the List of centenarians (actors, filmmakers and entertainers) page, providing frequent updates.

Happy editing for the future. Might we be getting any new pages for DW people from yourself in the near future?Silurian25 (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Silurian25 Hello. I didn't see anything about the divorce in the article body. As for your question, I have made drafts for Christopher Baker and Alexander Devrient but neither have been accepted yet. I would be grateful if you could help. Spectritus (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of most-followed Bluesky accounts has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Doctor Who Access All Areas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who Access All Areas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Francis Rigaud. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Spectritus (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Hoppers (film) a different title by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Hoppers (film). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Naraht (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht Sorry. It won't happen again. Spectritus (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, It took me a while to learn how much Wikipedia care about keeping page histories straight. You may want to look at the WP:AFC and WP:AFCH which has a lot of tools for handling this well from submitted drafts.Naraht (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht Okay. Spectritus (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume III, Issue II — June 2025 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who People assume that a newsletters are a strict progression of stuff happening to author's writing, but, actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of spacey-timey teley-graphy... stuff This is my Space-Time Telegraph Detector: 🕹️ It goes *ding* when there's a new newsletter out Welcome to the second 2025 issue of the Space-Time Telegraph. Apologies that we're a little late, sometimes this newsletter takes us when we need to go instead of when we want to go. In this edition you'll find everything that you need to keep you updated on things going on around the project as well as within the Whoniverse. Am I a good (or featured) man Wikipedia article? Since last Newsletter, many new GAs have been added to the Project. These include every individual episode in Doctor Who series 15 and a number of fictional characters, including Belinda Chandra, the companion of Series 15. A full list of Good promoted content can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who#Articles with Good Article status. So far, we've promoted 33 GAs this year, and we're on track to beat our previous record of GAs promoted in a year (36 in 2012). In terms of Good Topics, Wikipedia:Featured topics/List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) and Wikipedia:Good topics/Doctor Who series 14 were both promoted in May. Additionally, with the promotion of Yeti (Doctor Who) to FA status just this past month, the project has gotten its first FA status article in nearly a decade, with the last FA promotion being From The Doctor to my son Thomas in November 2015. Congratulations to all involved with these articles, and keep up the good work! Space-Time Telegraph Materialization Schedule With uncertainty surrounding when production of the parent show will resume, newsletter editors have decided to shift the publication schedule from quarterly to triannually for the time being. This means that the next issue will be published in December, and then every April, August, and December thereafter. When the future of the series is more certain, the schedule may update once more at that time. Their songs have ended... but their stories, never end 🌹 Since the previous issue was published, some people related to Doctor Who have sadly passed away: 29 April - Sue Stapely, 78, director's assistant (The Invasion, The Curse of Peladon) 4 May - Michael Allaby, 91, actor (Ice Soldier and Larn in The Keys of Marinus) 11 May - Michael McStay, 92, actor (Derek Moberley in The Seeds of Doom) 13 May - Sandra Exelby, 82, make-up artist (The Time Warrior) 24 May - Alan Yentob, 78, controller of BBC One (1993–1996) 24 May - Peter David, 68, writer (It's complicated, go on the TARDIS Wiki for details) 30 May - Prentis Hancock, 83, actor (Spearhead from Space, Planet of the Daleks, Planet of Evil, The Ribos Operation, and Big Finish Productions audio story Bernice Summerfield - Private Enemy No. 1) 5 June - Mary Husband, 91, costume designer (Day of the Daleks) 9 June - Pik-Sen Lim, 80, actress (Captain Chin Lee in The Mind of Evil and multiple characters in Big Finish Productions audio stories) 30 June - Kenneth Colley, 87, actor (Cristophe Zarodnix in Big Finish Productions' The Eighth Doctor Adventures audio stories Sisters of the Flame and The Vengeance of Morbius) 4 July - David Killick, 86 or 87, actor (Professor Cornelius Perkins in the Big Finish Productions audio story The Valley of Death) Intelligence Bulletin from the Subwave Network The War Between the Land and the Sea, an upcoming Doctor Who spin-off released its first trailer at the conclusion of series 15. The 5-part mini-series is expected to be broadcast later this year. The BBC has also commissioned an animated Doctor Who spin-off series targeted towards younger audiences. The 52-part programme is set to air in two parts of 26-episodes each between 2027 and 2029. In home media, the fifteenth series will be released on DVD, Blu-ray, and Steelbook in August. The Peter Cushing spin-off films, Dr Who And The Daleks and Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D., were recently colourised and re-released in June/July in 4K, along with new special features. Season 13 will be the next season to receive release in "The Collection" format, featuring remastered episodes and new special features. In print, three new Doctor Who novels, written by Emily Cook, Hannah Fergesen, Kalynn Byron came out in May. Another, authored by Esmie Jikiemi-Pearson is due out in November. Dan Watters and Sami Kivelä are also collaborating on a new series featuring for Titan Coomics. Finally, Pete McTighe and Carole Ann Ford are authoring new shorts to expand on previously unseen stories to be released in August and November in larger collections. Big Finish Productions have released several new Who-related audio dramas, and announced many more set to enter production soon. An audio vinyl release of The Moonbase, of which two episodes are missing, is expected to be out in September. New action figure sets taking on the appearance of Fourteenth Doctor and the Meep became available in June. Mattel also collaborated with the BBC to create Barbie dolls taking on the appearance of the Fifteenth Doctor and Belinda, first making their appearance in May at MCM Comic Con. Doctor Who will also once again have a presence at the 2025 San Diego Comic Con, featuring photo-ops and other new exclusive products. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Spectritus (talk) If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Rani of Jhansi, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 1827 is mentioned as one of her possible birth years on her talk page. Spectritus (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Same for 1828. Spectritus (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Also, why not include her birth and death years in the short description? It's a very common thing on Wikipedia. Spectritus (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SDDATES: they "are encouraged when they enhance the short description as an annotation or improve disambiguation". "(1827/1828/1835–1858)" is less enhancement and more actively confusing, not least because it doesn't match the article; there is also no disambiguation needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Alright. Fair point. Spectritus (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry for getting a bit harsh, having a TFA is pretty stressful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 It's okay. But, what's a "TFA"? Spectritus (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Today's Featured Article section of the Main Page, where the article featured normally gets 40,000+ viewers that day. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Ah, okay. Spectritus (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]