Talk:Kate Stewart

Age during The Silurians
When I encountered it, article had this statement:
 * Kate was five at the time of the Wenley Moor Silurian incident. (PROSE: Doctor Who and the Cave-Monsters)

Well, I've searched the book seven ways from Sunday, and all of the following search terms have failed: None of them turn up a hint of anything to do with a daughter of the Brig. Thus, I've removed this sentence because the citation is clearly wrong. If anyone knows where the statement actually comes from, they're free to reinsert it, along with the proper citation. 00:40: Sun 23 Sep 2012
 * Kate
 * Katherine
 * Katarina
 * daughter
 * Fiona
 * "five years"
 * "5 years"
 * "age of five"
 * kid
 * child

I think it might be from The Scales of Injustice. Doug86 ☎  00:43, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirmed.  00:49: Sun 23 Sep 2012

'Kate was the daughter',,, isn't that supposed to be 'is the daughter'. She hasn't died yet has she?


 * We write everything in past tense here. 170.185.224.19talk to me 13:34, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

Doris the step mother
The lead asserted that Doris Lethbridge-Stewart was Kate's step-mother. That's pure speculation, since new spouses of non-custodial natural parents are not automatically considered step-parents. There's no way in hell my mother would consider her father's wife her "step-mother" in any sense, and I certainly don't think of her as my "step-grandmother". "Step-parent" is not a legal title that simply passes automatically upon a marriage certificate. Step parents have no legally-enforceable parental responsibilities until and unless they actually adopt the child, at which point they are no longer step-parents.

You have to essentially earn the title "step-mother", so we would need to have narrative evidence that there was some sort of positive relationship between Kate and Doris. We've got good evidence from Scales of Injustice that Fiona was her natural and custodial mother. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any evidence in any story that Kate had any sort of interaction with Doris.

Due to the lack of a valid source, Doris therefore cannot stay in the main body of the article, much less the lead. 16:42: Sat 26 Jan 2013


 * I'm unable to find a dictionary that defines "stepmother" as narrowly as you do. Oxford defines it simply as "a woman who is married to one’s father after the divorce of one’s parents or the death of one’s mother." Can you cite a source for your definition? -- Rowan Earthwood ☎  16:57, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rowan. I've never heard of a step-parent not being an automatic title. Ever. Adopted parent is not automatic, as it has to be done legally, while a step-parent is automatic: someone who is currently married to a legal parent. I know legalities can differ between the US and the UK, but I'm suspect of whether they truly differ so much as to not be automatic. Restricting it to being a "positive" and "earned" definition sounds more like a personal/moral definition (essentially an opinion), not a legal one. Looking at the Cambridge.org online definition of stepmother, it states, "[T]he woman who is married to someone's father but who is not their real mother[.]" I would also like a cited source to the contrary. Mewiet ☎  04:44, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

She *isn't* Osgood's mother!
It's worth debunking the claims already spreading across the internet that Kate is Osgood's mother. She's not - Osgood does not address Kate as 'Mum' in "Day of the Doctor", but as 'Ma'am', which is sometimes pronounced as 'Mum' (e.g. when speaking to the Queen). Later in the episode Osgood addresses Kate as "Kate".86.178.204.38talk to me 09:32, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Placing of The Power of Three
Just a note to remind you guys that we write characters' articles in a chronological fashion. Tell me I'm wrong but the events of the Power of Three take place after 2013 (between 2016-17), placing this story, in the grand scheme of Earth bound things, after the Day of the Doctor. Therefore, when we write her life down on this article, surely we write the Day of the Doctor before the Power of Three? To see more about this, check references 271 and 272 on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Doctor_Who_universe#cite_note-298 The Farty  Doctor   Talk  04:51, January 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * This artical has been deleted cuod you provide a mother sores

Did Chibnall know?
It's come to my attention that Chris Chibnall claims he was unaware that a daughter of the Brigadier's named Kate had already appeared in the spin-off media when he wrote The Power of Three. He says he only learned about it when he was interviewed for Doctor Who Magazine. I for one find it difficult to believe that two writers could independently create a daughter of the Brigadier named Kate. When creating a child of the Brig's, you have two genders to choose from so it's not that far-fetched you'd come up with a daughter instead of a son. But of all the hundreds if not thousands of names you could use, you just happen to pick Kate? I'm not saying he's lying but I think he may have heard about her at some point in the past and then half-remembered the character when he wrote the script. Is that possible? Slughorn42 ☎  17:04, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fairly obvious that Kate's name isn't a coincidence. So either Chibnall half-remembered the character, or he's outright lying. Bwburke94 ~ Creator of All Things Brilliant! ~ 02:33, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * It's very possible that this is just the "offical" line, denying the fact that "this" Kate is not the same as "that" Kate, to avoid rights and ownership issues. MadeIndescribable ☎  12:25, September 21, 2015 (UTC)

Infobox in violation of T:NPOV?
Currently, the infobox is, to me at least, favouring Jemma Redgrave's version of the character, such as the infobox image only being of Jemma's version, and by having Beverley Cressman's credit in the "other actors" section of the infobox. This, I feel, is in conflict with Tardis:Neutral point of view. I would like to propose some changes. So, I hope I expressed my point clearly, and I'm open to discussion on this matter. Epsilon  📯 📂 20:03, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
 * Image: Either put Beverley Cressman's image first, with the Jemma Redgrave image in the "|image2" section, or, to incorporate both images into a template.
 * Actor: I would like Beverley's credit to take precedence over Jemma's, as Beverley was the first actress in the role. (Although I can understand the argument of Jemma's credit taking precedence, due to her portraying Kate many more times than Beverley.)


 * I think that you may have a point with the need for Beverley Cressman's image also in the infobox, however I don't think that her image should be first. Jemma Redgrave is the "main" actress to have played Kate - starring in several television episodes and a whole load of audios, and her appearance has been used in books and comics too. This is why I also think that Beverley should remain in "other actors" as well. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  20:17, November 4, 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure about including multiple actors in an infobox in cases like these - should we also include David Bradley in the First Doctor's infobox? Or Georgette Ellison in Patsy Haggard's? I think we should just keep Redgrave given that she is, in terms of appearances, the main actress even if she isn't the first. -- Saxon (✉️) 20:47, November 4, 2020 (UTC)


 * Using Jemma's image on the infobox doesn't necessarily mean a T:NPOV, because, at the end of the day, T:NPOV asks us to "give all media equal weight". We cover both depictions of Kate on the page, not giving Beverley a "lesser" importance just because she's from a home video rather than a TV story. As you pointed out, Jemma's portrayed Kate in far more stories than Beverley (and the number increases if we consider the times Jemma's likeness has been used for comic stories and covers).
 * Therefore, what happens is that, as of 2020, Jemma's version of the character is much more representative of the character than Beverley's. In a comparison, we're hardly going to want an image of Bradley or Hurndall on the First Doctor infobox, because what we associate most with that character - and therefore best represents the article - is that of Hartnell's performance. Same goes for Gillan and Blackwood for playing Amy Pond. I think {[tlx|CHARACTERpic}} is of good use for Time Lord articles, but not necessarily for every time a character's been played by two or more actors. OncomingStorm12th ☎  20:50, November 4, 2020 (UTC)


 * As for the actor section, I agree with the arguments for keeping it as is, hence why I noted this in my original edit.
 * As for the infobox image, take a look at Bernice Summerfield's infobox image - it's not a picture of Lisa Bowerman's portrayal, but from the character's depiction in a comic prior. I think there's a precedent here, that just because an actor is more recognised in a role, doesn't mean they get the infobox image. Epsilon  📯 📂 20:56, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure that image is used for Benny because it's in-universe and therefore prioritised over an image of Bowerman from a cover. -- Saxon (✉️) 21:07, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

Well, Dead and Buried and Transmission from Mars are in-universe sources, and it was decided against using images from those for the infobox. Epsilon  📯 📂 21:12, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to go much off-topic, but the current Benny image is also from an in-universe source. While we didn't go with the medium she's most recognised for, the decision was drawn between two in-universe sources, so it's not a 1:1 precedent. Had Jemma's likeness been used purely on covers, but never in an episode, then we'd have a closer precedent. OncomingStorm12th ☎  21:50, November 4, 2020 (UTC)


 * Bumping this discussion, there are two other solutions, being that either the "|image2" field is utilized or we utilize " " to allow the reader to select which image is used. 📯 📂 19:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image: Cressman v Redgrave
I think we need to have a discussion as to what the main infobox image should be - not necessarily to change the images themselves, but rather to discuss which actor appears first in the tabbed gallery on page load. I personally think it should be Redgrave who appears first, as she has had the most appearances and is therefore most widely recognised in the role. Aquanafrahudy has recently changed the primary image to Cressman, and has given the following reason for doing so: "Cressman was first". However, I'd argue that if we set a precedent for going by first appearances, rather than most appearances, then a tabbed gallery for Amy Pond would have Blackwood as the main image over Gillan. I just don't think going by who appears first is the best way. Just wanted others thoughts on this. 66 Seconds ☎  21:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with this. Kate Stewart is, as you say, most recognisably played by Redgrave. Kate Stewart's main actor is also noted as being Redgrave in the infobox itself so it would be consistent with that. Concerning non-Time Lord characters, I think we should order images by first appearances only if there's a roughly equal number of performances for each actor. BlueSupergiant ☎  22:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I too agree that the forefront image should match the performer listed in "main actor". BananaClownMan ☎  22:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeed; as per the Amy example this seems to be current policy at least in new-T:BOUND terms, and I for one think it quite sensible. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Change infoxbox image
I'd like to replace our current Redgrave infobox image with the image on the right. This one has better lighting than the current image. It is also slightly portrait, making it appear larger on desktop, and is more focused on Kate herself rather than any background details. 66 Seconds ☎  08:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While no longer banned outright when it's the best available option for other reasons, I nevertheless don't think being in portrait format should be considered a positive for an infobox image; it does make the box taller, which is inconvenient.
 * Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the recent spate of technically-not-quite-square infobox images. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  13:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)