Talk:Ruby Sunday
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Baby in the infobox image?
Is there a thread I am unaware of that constitutes we need to include a baby picture in the character's infobox? Its inclusion here is causing other users to start adding it onto other character articles too (ie: Rose Tyler's page). Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 00:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- This was covered in Forum:Temporary forums/Overhauling image policies#Infoboxes. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 00:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- This part? I did a keyword search but no mention of including baby images came up (quoting from conclusion section of the link):
- Tabbed galleries in infobox should be expanded for such purposes as alternative covers for publications, original vs. updated editions on yer Maras and Time Scoops (using, in both of these cases, the years as tab names) and, yes, non-diegetic recasts (using the actor's name for the tabs). I was initially going to specify that actors who play the character at a different age should be their own discussion, but then I remembered that we already do something very similar at Kazran Sardick, so… no, come to think of it, we absolutely should show Caitlin Blackwood on a second tab at Amy Pond.
- Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 00:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the end of that mentions child actors being allowed in the gallery of other-actors-playing-the-character. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 13:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- If we do this, how should we title the tabs? On Amy Pond's page, the actor names are listed whereas on Ruby's page it currently says "adult" and "baby" — Fractal Doctor @ 18:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ideally actors, but babies are often uncredited. 19:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Human?
We have a hidden note over on Ruby Sunday's mother saying to not put in her infobox that she's human due to the ambiguity around her identity and origin, which makes sense. But then, shouldn't Ruby's own species be ambiguous by extension? WaltK ☎ 21:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's a holdover from when Ruby's page also had that note. But, to say "Ruby's species is ambiguous" because of the line about no DNA matches being found is, as far as I am aware, a large misunderstanding of how DNA databases work. Hence why I wrote out that bit in the page behind the scenes section explaining that none of her relatives not being in a DNA database indicates nothing other than they're a. not criminals, and b. they haven't consentingly added their DNA to online databases. 22:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Guilty party right here. And it's true, I know nothing about how DNA databases work outside of what was said in the episode; police dramas have lead me to think everyone has DNA samples listed in some sort of government database. Though, I still think it is a bit presumptuous to have Ruby listed as a Human when her origins are a mystery, but I can live with it while it's in a schrodinger's cat situation (as in she is human until she is not), as it can be changed if she turns out to be of alien origin. However, I am curious, User:Epsilon, why you didn't make the same edit to her mother's page as well for consistency? BananaClownMan ☎ 09:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I got wrapped up in other edits and forgot to update Ruby's mother's page. Simple mistake really. Thanks for doing it.
- And, to be completely honest, the only reason I had a vague understanding of the topic is because a guy once broke into my house and the police couldn't find a match of his DNA when they searched afterwards. 10:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds terrible, and you have my sympathies for the burglary. BananaClownMan ☎ 10:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thankfully nothing was stolen, as he was seemingly high and looking for somewhere to sleep, but thank you for your sympathy. 11:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- If Ruby was not human, wouldn't the DNA sample have indicated that? BastianBalthazarBux ☎ 12:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
