Talk:Yasmin Khan

Attending high school in 2008

How can she have attended high school in 2008 if she's supposed to have gone to school with Ryan and he's supposed to be 19? JagoAndLitefoot ☎ 18:09, October 30, 2018 (UTC)

Of course, there is nothing we can do with this if it is stated in-universe (I can provide the exact quote if you're interested). But let's try to crack this. So, according to Education in England#Schools and stages (let UK people correct this if it's wrong), primary school is up to 11 years of age, while high school begins at 11. Yaz and Ryan went to Redlands Primary school together. Since Ryan was born in 1999, ten years ago he was 8-9 years old, which fits the primary-school age. This does seem to imply that Yaz is approximately two years older than Ryan, if she was already starting high-school around 2008, but this is also not very surprising to me. She does behave more mature. Amorkuz ☎ 18:31, October 30, 2018 (UTC)

Demons of the Punjab

Can we be sure that the Doctor returned Yaz home for the first scene? I for one interpreted it as being a flashback. -- Saxon 15:23, November 21, 2018 (UTC)

Rename

To provide more details, while the spelling of the first name of Yasmin from Fallout can be found on the CD, her last name, to the best of my knowledge, has no official spelling and is currently recorded as "Kahn" phonetically, based on the pronunciation in the story. However, the story's context, namely that other Yasmin's family also being from the Punjab region, strongly suggests the spelling "Khan" as more appropriate. Amorkuz ☎ 10:21, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

Why not rename this page "Yaz Khan", as that is how she is often addressed.BananaClownMan ☎ 10:24, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

Has "Yaz Khan" ever been used? I've heard "Yasmin Khan" and "Yaz", but never that combination of the two. This does leave Yaz as a possible alternate: it's already a redirect, no one else on the wiki (that I know of (by no means definite)) is specifically named "Yaz", and there's precedent in Ace. But I'm not sure this scenario is remotely comparable to Ace, and frankly, I'm not sure that page name would even stand up to scrutiny under current naming habits. A simple dab term seems to be the best solution here. – N8 ☎ 22:05, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not so sold on renaming the page "Yaz". While there would be precedent in Ace and Hex, these are far from being common nicknames, which "Yaz" totally sounds, in comparison. For example, Melanie Bush is almost always referred to as "Mel", but that's just too common to be the page name. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 22:29, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile, for the benefit of new users, the governing policies by which this will be decided are Tardis:Disambiguation, including specifically Tardis:Disambiguation#Primary topics. Relevant debates on a similar case happened at Talk: Brian Williams (Dinosaurs on a Spaceship)/Archive 1. Amorkuz ☎ 08:15, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and remove the renaming template on the page. The companion from series 11 is the primary in-universe topic by this name — precisely the kind of case for which Tardis:Disambiguation#Primary topics was written.

Remember, the primary use of a dab term — as is said throughout T:DAB — is to distinguish between in-universe and out-of-universe subjects. With in-universe topics of the same name, first you should try to see if there's a primary topic, and then you move on to dab terms if there's no clear choice to make on that score. Yasmin Khan (Fallout) — if that's even the right way to spell her name — is in no way comparable in stature to the S11 main character. Moreover, the Fallout character doesn't have a range of subsidiary articles, like Yasmin Khan's cousin, Yasmin Khan's grandfather and Yasmin Khan - list of appearances.

For minimum confusion to the widest range of readers, this article needs to stay at Yasmin Khan. If and when the other article gets written, it gets the story dab term. That'll make it super apparent in a search drop-down that one is the major character, and the other is an incidental character in a single story.

Finally, we want people to find this main article from Google searches. Unfortunately, this is an especially challenging page for Google, because there are famous real people named Yasmin Khan, all of which knock us way down the list for searches on just "Yasmin Khan". Luckily, "Yasmin Khan Doctor Who" gives us the second-best result in Google. A name change would weaken our position further without resulting in anything that's clearer to casual fans.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  21:38: Tue 26 Feb 2019

New image

Well, almost two year following her debut, I think it's about time we revisit the pictures for the Fam. The images we currently have were "makeshift" ones from the first episodes, so that the articles weren't left without images at all. We now have two full series worth of material to search. I'll leave here some images already present on the wiki who are infobox-worthy.

• 

  current

• 

  1. 3
• 

  1. 4
• 

  1. 5
• 

  1. 6
• 

  1. 7
• 

  1. 8
• 

  1. 9
• 

  1. 11
• 

  1. 12
• 

  1. 13
• 

  1. 14
• 

  1. 15
• 

  1. 16
• 

  1. 17
• 

  1. 18

That said, do feel free to pitch further images in compliance with Tardis:Guide to images below. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 17:41, October 11, 2020 (UTC)

I vote for #1. -- Saxon (✉️) 17:47, October 11, 2020 (UTC)

The way she's scrunching her face in #1 makes it the worst imo. #3 is probably the best, even though the lighting causes problems with it. (I just don't think the cinematography of these past two seasons has been all that good.) Najawin ☎ 18:30, October 11, 2020 (UTC)

My vote would personally go to #2, but #3 is good as well. I agree #1 is too uncharacteristic. But I'd really want more options than this. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:53, October 11, 2020 (UTC)

I think the colours of #2 are far too flat and muted. -- Saxon (✉️) 18:58, October 11, 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to watch some clips of Series 11/12 for any other images, as I personally don't like the ones currently presented. Epsilon (Contact me) 19:00, October 11, 2020 (UTC)

Out of the current choices, I personally like the one we already have the best. LauraBatham ☎ 01:48, October 12, 2020 (UTC)

I think #2 is the best out of these, but we should probably just look for more. Keep in mind at the end of the year we'll have one more episode to pick from. OS25🤙☎️ 04:19, October 12, 2020 (UTC)

Just added number 4. 66 Seconds ☎ 23:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I really like number 4, might be my fav. DoctorRey12 ☎ 02:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I personally think that #18 is the best. I really like infobox images where the character is smiling.

Epsilon📯 📂

23:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Currently, out of numbers 1-18 , my favourites are #6 & #4. Got some more images to crop and add tomorrow. 66 Seconds ☎ 23:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

...I like #4 and I really like #18, totally agree with Epsilon. DoctorRey12 ☎ 02:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I am once again cursing the post production team for making everything so dark, but out of these I quite like #4 and #18.LauraBatham ☎ 03:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed 1, 2, and 10 for not being cropped tightly enough. Please do not renumber the ones that are left, since several people have expressed their votes using the numbers that currently exist. Shambala108 ☎ 06:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yaz's sexuality

I have yet to see the 2022 news years special, but based on what I heard, Yaz confessed her feelings for the Thirteenth Doctor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but being romantically attracted to somebody doesn't mean you're sexually into them. A man could be asexual, and still have feelings for another regardless of their gender or sex. Ergo, just because Yaz likes the Thirteenth Doctor doesn't mean she's sexually attracted to her, which is why I propose we remove the "Non-heterosexual individuals" category from the article unless there's anything I'm missing. Cool11guy12 ☎ 15:07, January 13, 2020 (UTC)

This is not a motion to remove the category, so much as a motion to rename the "Non-heterosexual individuals" category. It is a category for queer characters; for characters who are something other than the heteronormative default. In the unlikely event that Yaz were to be biromantic but heterosexual, she would probably still fit into the spirit of the category, even if a literal reading of the category name would seem not to cover her. If we decide this is a problem, then we should rename the category to something like "Non-straight", clunky though it might be; not remove any acknowledgement of Yaz's non-cishetness from the categories of this page.

However, that entire assumption… seems like an isolated demand for rigour. Outside of Torchwood and some (but by no means all) prose spin-offs, Doctor Who media do not make a habit of talking about explicit sexual content. I don't believe Heather ever explicitly discussed whether she wanted to get under the sheets with Bill Potts, but who in their right mind would argue the point that she technically hasn't been confirmed as "non-heterosexual"? Certainly no one ever has, whether it be in the Forum debate which led to the creation of Category:Non-heterosexual individuals or anywhere else. Generally, if, say, a woman tells us she had a wife, that's more than good enough for us.

We might sound fussy and robotic sometimes, but this is a Wiki run by human beings for other human beings. We can make the judgment call that characters who are depicted engaging in non-straight behaviour of some description are meant to be non-heterosexual unless specifically noted as in fact being heterosexual, but bi- or even homoromantic. A hypothetical case which I don't believe has yet come up in any valid DWU source in the first place.

Compare, if you will, the fact that even though, in-universe, any given human extra in a post-The Day of the Doctor story could plausibly be a Zygon refugee, and a truly neutral in-universe archivist would thus consider all their species unknown — we still get to default to calling them humans unless otherwise noted.

Tl;dr: if you have a case at all, it's a case for renaming Category:Non-heterosexual individuals, and that conversation should happen on that category's talk page, not here. But at first glance, even that case seems flimsy to me. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 03:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)