Talk:Joan Redfern

Seventh Doctor novel

Should Joan Redfern as the one base off the one in the possible discontinue Seventh doctor novel. i mean they have the same name and were tecnically lover of a then human doctorGhidorafour ☎ 04:30, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Because Joan Redfern (TV character) and Joan Redfern (novel character) each meet a different Doctor, this wiki considers them as two separate people. I hope that answers your question. Shambala108 ☎ 05:21, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

fair enough i suppose24.215.188.166^{talk to me} 08:15, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Question

This page is not needed as it is already under the title Joan Redfern (TV character) saying exactly the same--Skittles the hog 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say the same thing, and they are two different characters. While one is based on the other they react and interact with Smith and other characters in a different way. Joan in the novel interacts with Bernice Summerfield in a very different way to Joan in the TV story. --Tangerineduel 22:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger

Having different pages for Joan Redfern's two appearances made sense with the state of the wiki in 2007 and 2013, but since Thread:232143's positive ruling on novelisation validity, we have had quite a lot of practice at constructing elaborate "according to another account" arrangements. Is it time for a merger of this page and her equally-awkwardly-dabbed twin Joan Redfern (novel character) into the singular Joan Redfern at long last? – n8 (☎) 07:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

New main image

Now that we're treating both TV and novel Joan as one and the same, I propose we give her a new infobox image so that a) the arguably more recognisable TV iteration is up front and centre, and b) to better satisfy our image policy.

• 

  Current

• 

  1. 1a
• 

  1. 1b
• 

  1. 2
• 

  1. 3
• 

  1. 4a
• 

  1. 4b
• 

  1. 5
• 

  1. 6

WaltK ☎ 19:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the current image, as it communicates that we don't prioritise the television version of the story. I know that Joan is pretty recognisable from her television appearances, but in terms of stories, they're on equal footing (the television story being a two parter, they're still one story), thus I feel it is compliant with T:NPOV.

Epsilon📯 📂

20:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Well… at the very least we should choose an image to put in the "Meeting the Tenth Doctor" section. WaltK ☎ 20:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Added a couple of images.

Epsilon📯 📂

20:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hold on: let's finish the John Smith debate before we start a similar one here. It's better to have fewer of these debates open at once so users can easily find the ones that are open. Once John Smith is done, we can resume here. Shambala108 ☎ 02:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok John Smith has been finished so we can begin discussion for Joan. One quick note, if the current image is to be kept, it should be cropped a little bit better at the bottom (i.e. remove some of the shoulder area). Shambala108 ☎ 15:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I quite like #5, which is nicely sharp and has got a lot of emotion to it. I think the poses of the two illustrations are suboptimal, unfortunately, although if we decide to stick with an image from the novel, #6 would have my preference over the current ones. Of the remainder, I like #1a the least. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

While my first pic would be #6 for the reasons I've previously stated, if I had to choose one of the pictures from the television story, it'd be either #2 or #6.

Epsilon📯 📂

21:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Very much in favor of #2 or #3. A push for an illustration as opposed to the actor for the purposes of trying to illustrate NPOV is inherently pushing a POV in my honest opinion. 73.135.193.157^{talk to me} 16:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's pushing a POV. Namely, the Neutral one. Regardless, I recall policy explicitly stating that if we have cover art vs diagetic picture, we must choose the latter, see T:IUI. (There was a talk page article where there was an exception made for a character whose only diagetic appearance was a particularly poor illustration, in comparison to some good cover art, but this isn't the case here, and I can't recall what it was.) Najawin ☎ 19:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)