Talk:Lux (Doctor Who)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Plifal talk 11:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Doctor Who episode "Lux" was described as having the same "kind of mind-bending prediction you'd expect from The Simpsons "?

• Source: https://www.ign.com/articles/doctor-who-planting-leaks-meta-marketing

• • ALT1: ... that following the Doctor Who episode "Lux", it was suspected that internet leaks were intentionally planted for marketing? Source: https://www.ign.com/articles/doctor-who-planting-leaks-meta-marketing
  • ALT2: ... that two songs featured in the Doctor Who episode "Lux" were not released until after the episode takes place? Source: https://mashable.com/article/doctor-who-season-2-episode-2-lux-easter-eggs
  • ALT3: ... that the Doctor Who episode "Lux" is set in Miami, Florida, despite being filmed in Penarth, Wales? Source: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/tv/bbc-doctor-who-season-2-31411035 and https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-ncuti-gatwa-discusses-darkness-lux-newsupdate/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jason Grote

Moved to mainspace by TheDoctorWho (talk) and Pokelego999 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC).

• Article is neutral, free from copyvio, suitably referenced, and meets the length and newness criteria—moved to mainspace on 20 April, within seven days of this nomination. The hooks are interesting, succinct, neutral, and verifiable—I removed the redirects from ALT0 and ALT3 per MOS:DYKPIPE, and slightly rephrased ALT1 and ALT2 for brevity. QPQ is done. This is good to go! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Ratings

@Rambling Rambler, Pokelego999, and Alex 21: "which, albeit, caused Lux to also record the weakest official viewing figures in the show's entire run; the feat, until this episode, had been held by the first part of the Battlefield serial in September 1989 which recorded viewing figures of 3.1m." --- can this reliably said from a source published in 2015? I'd say no as clear WP:SYNTH, but for obvious reasons mentioned in my edit summary I figured it was better to knock this out in a discussion real quick. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

This is very much textbook SYNTH, word for word. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, unless the source makes the comparison, this statement can't really be gleaned. Battlefield may have been the lowest viewed in 2015, but what happened in between cannot be gleaned from that source. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Strong disagree on this. The source states that Battlefield Part One has the lowest broadcast ratings of 3.1m. Now we have actively maintained all NuWho broadcast ratings from reliable sources (namely BARB) that shows none of them have fallen below 3.1m until now. If you like I can add the typical BARB weekly top50 database link which would cover that intervening decade.

We are not making A + B = C in a non-trivial manner, which would be SYNTH. So source A says this episode received 3m. Source B says the previous record low was 3.1m. Saying 3m is less than 3.1m does not require a source as it is blindingly obvious.

I can add a citiation of the BARB ratings database if you'd like which will cover the intervening 10 years, but frankly saying we can't use a book because of age would by that argument mean we can't cite any book because it'll be old. Imagine if in an article for "a rattlesnake is a type of snake" we didn't allow it because the citation to confirm this was from a book 20 years old. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

You are stating Lux's ratings with a source, you are stating Battlefield's ratings with a source, and then comparing the two with no source that actually compares the two. Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The comparison is "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources".

Also, when adding content to an article, it is "3.1 million", not "3.1m". We do not use shorthand in articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

If saying 3 million is less than 3.1 million is now something that requires an explicit source to openly state on Wikipedia then that is beyond ridiculous. I would highlight Wikipedia:NOTCOM on this. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

You are comparing episodes. Provide a source that supports your comparison, then it won't be a contested issue at all, will it? -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not comparing two episodes. I am comparing two numbers (3m and 3.1m) and saying one is smaller than the other. As I've signposted below with three different links, guidelines demonstrably support that comparison as not requiring a source. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho, @Pokelego999, @Alex 21

Proposed new wording:

"In consolidated ratings Lux received 3 million viewers (RT citation), this is lower than the previously recorded lowest-rating of 3.1 million recorded for Battlefield Part One (Doctor Who Complete citation)(BARB Top50 shows citation)".

This would cover the entire time period including episodes post-publication using a reliable source used for ratings data, and would not breach WP:SYNTH as it is typically applied. Both WP:NOTCOM and WP:INTEGRITY highlight that a basic comparison does not fall into the level of minutiae where SYNTH would be seen as an appropriate enforcement given that the nature of saying one cited figure is smaller than another cited figure shouldn't be regarded as something that requires a specific citation to point this difference out. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Will also add reference to WP:CK which uses as examples of scenarios that don't need a source and can be assumed as common knowledge are "mathematical or logical truisms ("1 + 1 = 2")" and "universally-accepted everyday orders that are taught in early elementary school ("A comes before B in the English alphabet." or "January comes before February in the Gregorian calendar.")", which would certainly apply here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

In one discussion, you've cited a single policy and demanded that only that policy apply, and no further other policies or guidelines. In this discussion, you've had cited against your edits a single policy and now demanded that further and other policies and guidelines apply (NOTCOM is an essay, INTEGRITY guideline, CK is an information page). Apologies, but SYNTH applies and takes precedence here. As detailed as your reasoning may be, using two sources that individually cite values remains textbook SYNTH by combining that material to state a conclusion that is in neither of the sources. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

First off, I have never said only that policy applies and I am disturbed you’re twisting another content issue we’re involved in as having any weight here.

Secondly, I have cited several Wikipedia guidelines and explanatory pages to detail how your “letter of the law” insistence for SYNTH is in fact incorrectly being applied here. I suggest you give a reason why these guidelines are no longer relevant. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It is just a comparatively weak argument made to avoid a major policy. SYNTH has a very firm basis, and using essays and information pages to avoid it just makes way for a challengable entry into the article. Find a source that explicitly compares the two, and this won't be an issue at all. I'm not sure how you're not understanding it: "Do not combine material from multiple sources" (i.e. two sources that discuss two separate ratings) "to state or imply a conclusion" (that it is now lowest-ever rated episode, given that it is lower than the lowest episode) "not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (neither of the aforementioned sources state this conclusion). This is the most factual, textbook way it needs to be applied. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Except it’s not “avoiding the policy”, I have cited relevant pages that all revolve around this exact situation and how it doesn’t breach SYNTH.

WP:INTEGRITY shows you can make a mathematical comparison between two cited values without a third citation explicitly making that comparison.

WP:CK also details that such an action is acceptable behaviour, because it is a basic mathematical operation.

So I am actually following WP:SYNTH as it is generally expected to be applied, as can be seen for example in the prose for the article List of highest-grossing films which contains the prose “ The Lion King (1994) earned over $2 billion in box-office and home video sales, but this pales in comparison to the $8 billion earned at box offices around the world by the stage adaptation” where that comparison is made despite it not being made in either citations used. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

INTEGRITY actually says nothing of the sort, in fact, it states "Do not add other facts or assertions into a fully cited paragraph or sentence". CK begins with "Citing sources when your edit is challenged by another editor is Wikipedia policy, and any unsourced edits may be removed". Sometimes, just as obvious as a new article title might be, "it's obvious" is not a good enough explanation when challenged with a core policy. Find a source that actually discusses what you're looking for, and this whole discussion would be over. If you disagree with the policy of SYNTH, you're welcome to discuss it on that particular talk page. Until then, best to stop edit-warring.

Personally, I'd also argue that you're comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing a first-aired rating from 1989, to a rating produced ten hours after an episodes first release in 2025. If you were to properly compare ratings, you would be comparing a first-aired rating to a first-aired rating. This is a completely inappropriate comparison. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

You're comparing a first-aired rating from 1989, to a rating produced ten hours after an episodes first release in 2025. If you were to properly compare ratings, you would be comparing a first-aired rating to a first-aired rating. This is a completely inappropriate comparison.

Huh, isn't that strange. You've spent all this time insisting my edit is SYNTH because the sources supposedly don't support what was written yet you've just given away you haven't read the source given if you had you'd know that the consolidated figures are not "produced ten hours after an episodes first release in 2025" as you falsely claim but are in fact considered the fairest comparison as it takes in all views during the "first-airing" period of 7 days from the moment it is first available.

Now given the fact you randomly brought up a different dispute here for no reason as though it has bearing on this issue, and are applying SYNTH in the most unbelievably literal version I've ever seen even though it goes against guidelines, I no longer have any belief you are acting in Good Faith and are instead holding a serious grudge against me regarding the Series 15 discussion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21 also instead of making what appears to be unsubstantiated allegations that I'm editing logged-out to "edit war" (Rv edit-warring between logged in and logged out accounts) maybe notice you've just breached 3RR. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The first released is its release on iPlayer. Its second release is its broadcast on BBC ten hours later. Consolidated viewers refer to the airing of the episode, as per BARB itself. The comparison of the two continue to remain SYNTH. Again - if you disagree with the policy, you can discuss it with the wider community and gain a consensus that SYNTH does not apply here.

I also made no such allegations. When I said a logged out editor, I was referring to the IP, as they are, indeed, logged out. The logged in editor is you. The two appear to be unrelated. Would you have preferred I said "edit-warring between unrelated logged in and anonymous accounts"? Also, per WP:3RRNO, this includes "Reverting obvious vandalism", which is unsourced content. The logged out editor has forced that particular content multiple times with no discussion and a wide array of warnings from multiple editors across their talk page - this is obvious vandalism, and duly noted is the lack of mention about their own warring. Always be careful of boomerangs - the edit was restored after being reverted by multiple editors, and restored while in the middle of a content dispute discussion (talk about good faith). Happy to have explained that. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Per BARB: "Viewing figures for programmes on broadcast channels are consolidated 7-day viewing figures with pre-broadcast viewing and viewing on tablets, PCs and smartphones included. Viewing figures for programmes on SVOD services are calculated based on the average audience achieved during the first seven days of their availability – if launched during the week in question – or across the calendar week, and only include TV set viewing."

So you're wrong on that.

Also you did make the implied allegation, because there was no "edit-warring" on my part. I made a single revert under the good faith belief of a source being reliable given its ubiquity on this site, and then when that source was pointed out as being judged as unreliable I fixed that query with a reliable source believing that was the only source of issue but it has since been questioned on completely fresh grounds. Despite yourself being very aware of this you still chose to make a slight about it here and then made it again in the edit summary. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This has been moved to AN since. I shall not perform any further contributions to this particular content or discussion while the AN discussion is in place; no edits of disputed content should have been performed while any discussion was in place in the first place. Hope you understand. Thank you. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lux (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 04:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 03:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I really enjoyed reviewing The Well so I am going to review this as well! Expect comments by the end of the week :D DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the delay, I have been very very busy and tired. Well done on this article - it is so interesting! I found the filming bit to be the most interesting. I cannot see any major issues and earwig shows no copyright issues. I have several comments/suggestions - I am not trying to be picky or mean at all, these are just things I did not understand and I imagine that other readers may also struggle with, so I wanted to note these per WP:READERSFIRST. I also made a few minor changes too.

Review:

Lead - no issues spotted. I merged the first two paragraphs as I felt that they were quite small.

Plot:

1.) "who disappeared from the cinema" - would recommend changing to "disappeared whilst at the cinema" to make it clear that they disappeared when there rather than just being an employee etc who worked there that disappeared

2.) Is there any way you can clarify "the embodiment of Lux Imperator"?

3.) "is responsible" for what?

4.) "They flee to another false reality" - Is there any way to explain what the other "false reality" is? Is it inside the cinema?

5.) "challenges them" - How?

6.) "until he becomes one with the universe" - Is it possible to reword or explain this? I found it difficult to understand

Development and production design:

1.) "and racism, in which Davies said he added to address issues in present-day society" - Is it possible to reword this sentence (I don't think it is the correct wording) and potentially expand on the issues of the present day?

2.) "Examples of racism and segregation" - I slightly reworded this bit to make it flow better, I hope it is okay

3.) "Other motifs in the episode present explore grief, hope, friendship, and sadness" - Is it possible to slightly expand on this?

4.) Can you please briefly explain how Davies broke the fourth wall?

5.) Can you please say who Anita is?

6.) "three different wigs were considered for Sethu to wear" - Did she end up wearing the three wigs?

7.) "Following this instance, such an idea was considered quasi-canon" - Can you please explain what this mean? Which instance and who considered it quasi-canon?

8.) "This scene raised suspicion that Davies had potentially been planting spoilers online himself regarding upcoming episodes as well as rumours that the series would enter into another hiatus. It was also theorized that these leaks could be part of a larger marketing campaign" - I am a bit confused - which leaks are these referring to? And which scene is this referring to? Who theorized and who was suspicious that Davies had been planting spoilers online? I found this bit to be quite confusing as I did not understand what it was referring to and it seemed unconnected to the previous sentence so if you could potentially explain that would really help readers. I also was a bit confused whether this was referring to the fans in the episode or the real world fans.

9.) "stated that the episode had the same "kind of mind-bending prediction you'd expect from The Simpsons"" - Who stated?

Filming and post-production:

1.) Can you briefly explain or link what "period theatre sign" is?

2.) Which type of "vehicles" were added? 1950 American cards?

3.) Is there any information on how Cumming voiced his scenes? Did he do them independently at home or at a studio in New York etc?

Ratings - is it possible to explain what "consolidated figures" are?

Critical reception:

1.) There are quite a few instances of "highlighted" - could you potentially change a couple? E.g. "Will Salmon, writing for GamesRadar+, praised..."

2.) "felt the Doctor's optimistic way of handling it "can't help but scrape awkwardly against our real-world knowledge." - I am quite confused by this - could you potentially expand briefly on this for clarity?

3.) "it quickly became "strained"" - Is there any way to briefly explain on why she felt it became strained?

In print - Is there a way to reduce the whitespace?

Sources - Could you please archive the remaining sources (e.g. Sources #16 and #17)

When these are addressed I will do a source spotcheck and hopefully pass this article. Please let me know if you have any questions at all or need any assistance. Well done on your work so far! :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: I have fixed most of these issues, by providing additional clarification where possible. There were just a few cases where it seemed that it didn't quite seem possible. For example, with "the embodiment of Lux Imperator, God of Light": this is saying that the God of Light has taken on an embodied form called Lux Imperator, or with "period theatre sign": theatre sign is a compound noun and period is an adjective meaning "belonging to or characteristic of a past historical time, especially in style or design". Just to explain the leaks/spoilers a bit more one a bit more, the final two paragraphs of the development section are both discussing the same topic, the meta-scene. The "leaks" are aforementioned spoilers that were suspected of being planted in that same paragraph. I have tried to patch those paragraphs up in places. Any of the other few lacking expansion are from lack of further elaboration in the source itself. I believe that everything else should be addressed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thank you so much for your changes – they are great! And thank you for your explanation – I understand that it's not always possible to clarify and I appreciate you trying. I have spotchecked Sources #1, #5, #10, #18, #34 and #41 and I am going to pass this article, well done! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.