Talk:Doctor Who series 8/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2014

Under section 5 Broadcasting & DVDs: Would like find out where season 8 can be legally streamed online (e.g. hulu, netflix) this fall. I have scanned search engines and have not been able to find trustworthy info. Possibly some of your regular editors/contributors already have this info? If you are able to, please make this available in this Wikipedia topic. Thank you so much for the effort you have made so far! 216.53.247.216 (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)jerry.tall@gmail.com 216.53.247.216 (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not an edit request, please only use this template if you are requesting an edit to the article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

There were a lot of unsourced edits to this article so I requested semi-protection (only auto-confirmed users can edit). I requested long-term protection, since I anticipate this speculation will continue through the summer, but it was just extended to May 30th. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Good call. G S Palmer (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Series finale

On Rachel Talalay's original Twitter account (which she has since deleted and replaced), she confirmed that she was directing the finale which will be a two-parter and presumably written by Steven Moffat. 147.197.251.155 (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

12 episodes or 13?

Infobox says 13 episodes, episode list says 12. Which is it? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that it hasn't been announced yet. For now I'll change the infobox to say "TBA". G S Palmer (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Leaked episode titles"

The BBC has not officially announced the titles, why are "leaked" titles repeatedly put on the page? -Λίνουξ (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Because apparently they were leaked online. But since no one has provided a good source yet, just keep reverting them until they do. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a reliable source, so I don't want to add the titles. But it's the most reliable-looking source I could find that has these titles, so if someone wants to do it, here's a possible source: http://sciencefiction.com/2014/07/07/five-seasons-doctor-scripts-leaked-online/ Ratemonth (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm being dense, but where in the linked article does it say anything other than that the scripts have been leaked? As far as I can tell, it doesn't say anything about the episode titles. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 09:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

They removed them. They were there yesterday. DonQuixote (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ah. Thanks. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Right then, let's keep reverting until the BBC officially announces the titles. They usually announce such things at the Doctor Who blog, so let's focus on that. -Λίνουξ (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Although the episode titles weren't confirmed by the BBC, they were on the leaked scripts. Therefore, they were the real titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DWS8 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Anyone can claim anything, but that doesn't make it official. The BBC can change the titles at any time, and it's impossible to tell if the leaked titles are actually the real ones. If you can cite your claims properly, you are always welcome to edit the page as you see fit. -Λίνουξ (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2014

Add titles for the first five episodes

107.2.80.165 (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

We need a source for those titles. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I argue BBC's confirmation scripts were leaked and had become available online as confirmation the leaks were legitimate. The titles can be clearly seen in any downloadable copies of the scripts. Maridiem (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This is absolutely not an acceptable source. This is Wikipedia, not Wikileaks. Mezigue (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2014

update the titles of episode 2-5 to “Into the Dalek” by Phil Ford, “Robots of Sherwood” by Mark Gatiss, “Listen” by Steven Moffat and “Time Heist” by Steve Thompson. 73.189.14.210 (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Not done: not a reliable source. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: Why is http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Doctor-Who-Season-8-Scripts-Leak-Online-65104.html not a reliable source? It seems to be a peer reviewed report to me. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

They cite Bleeding Cool as their source, and Bleeding Cool has removed the titles. So not verifiable. DonQuixote (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Plus, I'm under the impression that Bleeding Cool itself is not the definition of a reliable source. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The titles are correct. I have the scripts on my computer. If you want an image I will upload one, but there are so many sources, why didn't you include the titles yet? H8149 (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yup, and the pyramids were built by aliens.

You know it's true because I said so. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Here you have it. Hope, you choke on it. http://p31i.imgup.net/episodes99e1.png H8149 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I don't doubt that those are the titles. I just have yet to see a reliable source asserting that they are. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Also, the choking hazard for a few bytes of binary code is very low. :) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Deep Breath (Doctor Who)

Someone has now created this article: all you avid watchlisters might want to take a peep at it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Leaked unedited DW S8 Episodes

Episodes 1 & 2 have been leaked today (12.07. 2014). They are only in black and white with unfinished CGI and some audio problems. These episodes are those from the BBCMiami server, which are known as Marcelo Camargo_Ep1.mp4 and Marcelo Camargo_Ep2.mp4'. H8149 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Already in the article. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The official Doctor Who blog is down

BBC's Doctor Who blog Gives HTTP 404. Could this somehow be connected to the episode leaks? -Λίνουξ (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The blog is up and running now, so probably not :-) –anemoneprojectors– 10:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh, it is back. Thanks, back to waiting for August 23. -Λίνουξ (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2014

There are unconfirmed titles for episodes 2,3,4,5,7,8,9. Those are: 2. Into the Dalek 3. Robots of Sherwood 4. Listen 5. Time Heist 7. Kill the Moon 8. Mummy on the Orient Express 9. Flatline

The first four are on the leaked scripts for the series. The other three are unconfirmed titles found on Doctor Who Online's Series 8 guide.

http://news.drwho-online.co.uk/#Listen!-Series-8-Teaser-Trailer RobertJohnston1998 (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We do not add unconfirmed titles. We add them when once they are confirmed by the BBC. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2014

It has been confirmed that- because of the doctor who leaked scripts (witch I have not read.)the titles for the first 5 episodes are as follows: Deep Breath Into The Dalek Robots Of Sherwood Listen Time Heist Thank you

86.166.127.148 (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be confirmed by a reliable source so that we can cite the source. Anonymous internet users cannot be cited. DonQuixote (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Capaldi and Coleman confirmed for Christmas Special

Capaldi and Coleman have been confirmed for the 2014 Christmas Special, which is likely to be Episode 13. I have edited the article in accordance. I presume (not edited though) that they will both be returning for Series 9. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Episode 2 synopsis:

http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/into-the-dalek-synopsis-65461.htm

A Dalek fleet surrounds a lone rebel ship, and only the Doctor can help them now… with the Doctor facing his greatest enemy, he needs Clara by his side. Confronted with a decision that could change the Daleks forever he is forced to examine his conscience. Will he find the answer to the question, am I a good man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallifrey High Command (talk • contribs) 13:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Episode Summaries

Why are their already episodes summaries? Every TV article I've been on, it's always been no summaries until it's aired. After all, you can't summarize something you haven't seen, and more often then not, a summary before airing is copy-paste. 220.245.146.235 (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• They're not copy-pastes. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 09:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Then they're from other websites. How can you summarize something that you haven't seen yet? 220.245.146.235 (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • They're based on the official BBC synopsis for the episodes (which you can find here and here, respectively). Also, some of the people here may very well have seen the episodes, for instance at the advance screening in Cardiff. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 09:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I swear there's a rule about this, since every TV episode list I've been on, it's no summaries until it's publicly aired. I'mma go find this rule. Wasn't aware that the second episodes was publicly screened, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.146.235 (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

All episodes:

http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/series-8-all-titles-revealed-64718.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallifrey High Command (talk • contribs) 11:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Already done by Hellboybookeeper. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

New article on viral video - From The Doctor to my son Thomas

• From The Doctor to my son Thomas

I've created a new article on viral video From The Doctor to my son Thomas.

Help or suggestions with additional secondary sources would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:From The Doctor to my son Thomas.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

New ref

New blog post from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/articles/Peter-Capaldi-begins-filming-on-Doctor-Who

That post should've been signed. I know, I added that and other sources to update filming. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Paternoster Gang Filming

Many users have edited the page saying that the Paternoster Gang have begun filming Episode 1. Just to confirm, they started filming on 7th Jan 2014 but it is unknown whether they were filming or will star in Episode 1. Remember, Doctor Who films in blocks which usually are not in order. If any other users see this and the edit has no source then remove it. A protection may have to be placed on the page if it happens again. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Episodes

Tumblr's all abuzz about "The Ghosts of Pompeii" being an episode name, and this link includes a few episode names, but I don't know if it's accurate, since it doesn't include a link to the original interview. --zandperl (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Until someone from the BBC mentions an episode name, we cannot list it. Ratemonth (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I had believed that was just a rumour at this stage, nothing concrete, even just conjecture. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Recording/Filming

This series (being made in 2014) of Doctor Who is being made on video and not on film. There is a distinction. For a series that has so far employed both methods extensively, it is important to make that distinction. For someone to report that "Filming has begun on the new series" is simply inaccurate.

Worse than that, to revert an edit that corrects this to "Recording" is nonsensical, especially when done with some such justification as "oh well it's a euphemism for recording". No it isn't. It's at best what lazy or uninformed people use to refer to the process when they either don't know the difference or don't think the distinction is important. Even if an edit changing "filming" to "recording" is seen as nit-picky or pedantic, to change it back is just increasing the inaccuracy for no benefit. Please desist. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not shot on 'video'; it's shot on harddrives and flashcards, just as most blockbuster movies are today. The destiction is outdated. The producers are also going for a 'filmed' look. 'Recording' implies the reording audio-only, which is not the case here. WP:MOSTV also never uses 'recording'; TV productions are filmed. — Edokter (talk) — 08:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Autumn?

The article states that this series will air in "Autumn", which begs the question: Autumn where? I highly doubt that the series will air in March-May, which is Autumn in my part of the world. Wikipedia, is supposed to be a world wide resource and using terms like "Autumn" without specifying northern or southern is POV. Better to use the actual month which in this case is August according to many online sources I located with two minutes work with Google. I have previously made this change only to be reverted with an unhelpful comment to the effect that "the source says Autumn". Well maybe it does, but that does not address the substantive point. I am not generally familiar with this topic as a Wikipedia article to determine what is an appropriate reliable source, but I am sure some of the regulars here should be able to find a suitable source to quote in short order. If I don't get a response to this post within a week, I'll make the change again. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's autumn in the country of origin. DonQuixote (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia is not just for the UK, or the USA for that matter (despite what so many American Wikipedians seem to think) - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, but there's certainly no source for August. Better to just put 2014 or TBA or something. Ratemonth (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a reliable source from episode 1 & 2 director that his episodes (i.e Start of series) will air in July 2014. BBC hasn't confirmed this but them again they haven't officially confirmed Autumn 2014. Just asking other users whether start date should be changed to July 2014. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ben's episodes won't air in July, they'll be completed in July (post-production included). Also, Moffat's plan since 2011 has been to move Doctor Who back to the Autumn where it belongs, the expectation being late September (Episodes 1-12) followed by the Christmas Special. 147.197.251.155 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it will be Autumn for the UK when the episodes come out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.16.58 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter Jackson Directing

While the Peter Jackson info is fascinating, and well-sourced, does it belong on this page? He is definitely not directing this season, but is merely friendly towards the idea of directing at some point. The current wording seems to imply, at least to a casual reader, that he is involved with Season Eight. Perhaps this info could be cut and placed on the page for the show in general, as it really has no application to Season Eight.

Consensus?

208.95.49.166 (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be removed altogether until something actually happens. Mezigue (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It is production-related and newsworthy, and for lack of a better place, the current production block seems appropriate. — Edokter (talk) — 11:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that for the time being it should stay, since there isn't any better place to put it. G S Palmer (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

75 or 80 Minutes: Deep Breath

I have recently edited the article stating that Deep Breath is 80 Minutes. My 2 edits with sources were removed. I have now found a new, fully legitimate source by the BBC which states that it will start at 19:50 and end at 21:10. It also lists the running time of the episode as 80 Minutes on the BBC Guide. Question is, will the good users of Wikipedia take this as a legitimate source? Any thoughts/ideas.Mcs2050wiki (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mcs2050wiki: It would help if you would provide the source that we're supposed to be assessing. Note: I started a related thread at Talk:Deep_Breath (Doctor Who)#Length. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I read the Deep Breath talk page. The source being used is the same as mine. If Deep Breath is using it then so shall this page.Mcs2050wiki (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Longest Running Series Opener since Rose?

What exactly does this mean? If Deep Breath is 80 minutes long, this would pretty much make it the longest episode of DW ever. Not since Rose. Since ever. Plus Rose is only 46 minutes. Even the Eleventh Hour is 65 minutes. What do you mean that Rose was the longest series opener? At 46 minutes, it's the most basic runtime any episode could be in new who. 50.168.253.153 (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say or mean Rose. It means in the history of "New Who". There's classic Who that is longer than 80 minutes (e.g. The Movie). 220.245.146.235 (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, I think it should be reworded, it's kind of confusing.50.168.253.153 (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"Robot(s) of Sherwood"

So who has it wrong? The plural form seems way more plausible, otherwise we would have seen "The Robot of Sherwood". -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I would guess that it is probably "Robots", since they also made the error of capitalizing the "of" in the title. Which an editor at "Into the Dalek" insists is the way we should write it since that was the way the Beeb did. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder whether 'Robot of Sherwood' isn't actually more likely, and intended to recall 'Robin of Sherwood'. Chronarch (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Edokter, could you give me a hand explain basic grammar to 220.245.146.235? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The BBC have their of styleguides; they usually capitalize all words. We don't. I'll point the IP to MOS:TITLE#Capitalization. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I already did, and they just said "thanks for pointing me to the page that says you can use the source as the basis for what to capitalize". G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say that; probably taken out of context. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, you pointed me to MOS:CAPS! Different one. "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name". 220.245.146.235 (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

From MOS:CAPS, particularly MOS:CT

The words that are not capitalized (unless they are the first or last word of the title) are:

• Articles (a, an, the)
• Short coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, nor; also for, yet, so when used as conjunctions)
• Prepositions containing four letters or fewer (of, to, in, on, for, with, etc.; but see below for instances where these words are not used as prepositions)
• The word to in infinitives.

Like any publication, Wikipedia has it's own manual of style, and this is it. DonQuixote (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary contradictions

So, it says hidden on the edit "DO NOT copy and paste summaries from other sites. Even if referenced that is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION and will be REMOVED. Please save responsible editors the time by adding summaries IN YOUR OWN WORDS."

Moffat has released synopsis for all of the episodes, which I was going to add it. But see this message. So I decide to add them in, based upon the ones released. And yet it gets taken away as it is classed as Original Research. Please tell me the logic in this? Someone, in the edit, put a hidden message for the editors that says do not copy and paste summaries from other websites, as it is a copyright violation and will be removed. I understand this, but this is wikipedia where the existence of it relies on copying and re-wording from some other website, then has a reference to link to the original place. With a reference, a source back to the original place, that is not saying "we have copied and pretending your work is ours", it is saying "used from/based on/re-worded from this website". This isn't relevant to this, but Wikipedia has been in a bit of a scruffle with the Monkey selfie. It was the photographers camera, and wikipedia claim the photo is simply public usage as no one owns the copyright, but the reality is the cameraman deliberately set up his camera, for something like this to happen.

How can the hidden message say not to copy and paste summaries, and write in our own words, but then it gets deleted for Original Research? Sorry to say it, but Duh? The editor practically asked for original research in "... adding summaries IN YOUR OWN WORDS."

So what is it? What can editors do? I've seen Deep Breath, and I bet if I went and added the entire plot to the page, it would get deleted as it isn't released yet. Right here, now, lets decide how we should approach this? As the hidden statement is contradictory. The edits I made today, Moffat said those himself. He wrote it for the Doctor Who Magazine. If we correctly reference them, then we can put them in. If not, and we just write our own, it would be classed as Original Research. All I did was re-word and create my own at parts of the synopsis, to avoid copyright violation. And yet then it was claimed to be Original Research.

Please, lets make our minds up and discuss how this should be. Charlr6 (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Charlr6: Here's how you're summaries strayed from "rewording" to "original research". You wrote The Doctor and Clara are miniaturised and put inside of a Dalek, to discover why it has been acting good. Now where did you get that? It has been said that the Dalek was good, and it has been said that they will be minatuarized to go inside of it, but you were combining the two to get something that neither of the sources explicitly stated.

Then you wrote The Doctor and Clara's lives are interfered by three people; a horrified caretaker, the last man in the universe, and a little boy who does not want to be forced into the army. The actual quote was What scares the Doctor? Ghosts of the past and future crowd into the lives of the Doctor and Clara; a terrified caretaker in a children’s home, the last man standing in the universe, and a little boy who doesn’t want to join the army… very different meanings, actually.

If you want to write them again, you'll have to do so in a way that is actually supported by the sources. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

About first paragraph. You ask where did I get that, and I was combining two that neither sources stated. In the original article where I read it, it said; A miniaturised team embark on a fantastic voyage into a Dalek so damaged it has become good. The rest of the 'team' doesn't matter in a short synopsis, and as its a re-wording as long as the Doctor and Clara are in it it's fine. In the episode, they get shrunk down to see why the Dalek was acting good. Which is what I said. I re-worded, wrote it in my own way, and you are saying it did not explicitly state it.

Second paragraph. You said mine and the original had different meanings. Why and how? Because I did not mention about the Doctor's fears? Then the rest is re-worded. And how is what I said, not supported? You don't want a complete copy and paste, but want something that doesn't break copyright, which is what I gave you.

Third. How is what I said, not supported by the articles? If you want something that is supported by the articles then why don't we just quote it all? Actually quote in whatever way is suitable for the summary box? Because there is a difference from simply quoting, and then copy and pasting and making it possible seem like your own.

If you know what you want, then please, show me what I did wrong by doing what I was trying to do and put it into the article yourself. Because I do not want to go and re-do it all and try and make it better and the original article can 'support' it, because you might not even feel that is good.

What is happening here, is there is one editor me, who re-wrote something and you do not understand it. Just like an opinion two people might have on a movie. You might not understand why I like a certain movie. Charlr6 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It says the Dalek is so damaged that it has turned good. Nowhere does it actually say that that is the reason that they are travelling inside it. Also, it says "a team" of people, not "the Doctor and Clara". While we can surmise that they are part of the team, to do so is original research. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Please, do the edit yourself if you know what to do. I insist as I do not want to disappoint once again. Charlr6 (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Charlr6: I'm a bit busy elsewhere at the moment, so it won't be my top priority. In fact, there's no real hurry to get them up, so I'll probably leave it to someone else. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

but then get involved if you don't like the edit. Would have time then. Also time replying on here could have been spent on it. Charlr6 (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. Jack Sebastian has said we don't show these prior to air date. Is this actually a Wikipedia rule? I understand there is a deadline rule, where there is no deadline for some things. But no plot details before episode airs? Is that a thing. Even though the first episode has already been shown to the public at around the world at certain places. And Wikipedia does not do spoilers, and will do whatever can be added to an article. But as Moffat himself revealed in Doctor Who magazine, the plots are out there so we have something to use, or re-write on. One editor says this. Another that. Charlr6 (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's impossible to write avoid Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing without using OR. So the removal is for the best. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Individual episodes

It seems that the articles for the individual episodes have been being created a bit preemptively. (Example, another one.) Shouldn't we be waiting till a little bit more is known (for instance, airdate, length, etc.) before creating these? Perhaps it would be a good idea to fully protect them till a week or two before the airdates. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles with real world information should be fine for now (leaks, filming, etc.) If it's just an infobox and synopsis, then it should probably be redirected here. DonQuixote (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Design Changes Section

I am getting pretty annoyed with people writing that Billy Hanshaw, YouTube video editor was commissioned by BBC Wales to create the new title sequence and backing it up with the sources/refs. The refs all state that the official titles were based on his ideas and that he did not create them himself (official ones actually different to his according to sources). If people could leave the section as it is, correct.Mcs2050wiki (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It says it right in the second source, and all the other ones are vague. So either provide a source that says he wasn't commissioned, or leave it alone. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said. We can all trust a fan blog site can't we. So what, it never says he was commissioned. A company like the BBC isn't really going to hire a YouTube user. They based the ideas on it. It even says so in the latest issue of Doctor Who Magazine. Why don't you leave it alone. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:BLOGS, no we can't trust a fan blog. DonQuixote (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if it didn't come through but when i meant we trust fan blogs I was being sarcastic. I think until we get official confirmation that Hanshaw was directly involved, we leave the article as it currently is which seems to me that the explanation given is probably reality. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I probably should have paid more attention to this. DonQuixote (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, here's the BBC release about the title sequence: The Doctor Who fan who created the show's new titles. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I read the article earlier. It's basically saying Hanshaw helped the BBC created a finished title sequence using his version as a basis. I think that the article should be changed after the episode is aired to include something about this. I also think that we should watch the credits carefully. If Hanshaw is credited we should revert to the original statement with some changes about him being commissioned and working for the BBC. If not, we should amend the current article, giving him more credit but leaving the fact that the BBC still mainly were responsible for the finished titles.Mcs2050wiki (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You can now check Billy Hanshaw's official website for a true source: http://billyhanshaw.co.uk/ And here is a screencap of Billy Hanshaw being credited: http://imgur.com/sIsu3fg 220.245.146.235 (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hanshaw according to the screenshot is being credited as Title Concept. This means he did not create the titles as they were. I have seen his original video, the basics are the same but everything else is different. I think we should change the article to include that Hanshaw created the concept for the title but not the actual finished product which previous version of the series 8 article were stating. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And what about the link to his website, giving in the very same paragraph? 220.245.146.235 (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I read the website just now actually. Hanshaw explains how he provided a storyboard for the BBC. This ratifies his credit as Title Concept. He did not create the titles in their finished version, only provided the concept and basis. Hanshaw did not create the official titles used in the episodes however did create the concept. That is what we need to remember. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Deep Breath AI Score

The AI (Audience Appreciation Index) listed for Deep Breath is incorrect, per Doctor Who News the AI should be 82 not 86. The AI appears to have been changed to that of the Friday repeat of Deep Breath (which does not reflect the intent of having the AI, unless all episodes AI's listed come from the repeats viewed by the smaller audience rather than the AI of the initial airing.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.118.143 (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Into The Dalek consolidated viewing figures

The viewing figures have now been published that include time shift. This changes them from 5.2 million to 7.29 million http://www.thegallifreytimes.co.uk/2014/09/doctor-who-into-dalek-overnight-uk.html Majesticbluebox (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Quotation marks in the titles of the episodes of series 8

The quotes are really necessary in the titles? They seem to pollute the titles, and can't be copied, making the basically useless there. Well, at least this is my view point. 189.79.27.85 (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as this adheres to the Doctor Who Project MOS and the Wikipedia MOS Etron81 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I've opened a relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Quote tags and Template:DISPLAYTITLE. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Should the short summaries be that restricted?

I thought it would be better to ask before editing.

The short summaries for each episode, currently the first three, do not summarize the whole episode, but end leaving the reader about halfway through the episode's plot. I was thinking that, since this is an encyclopaedia, a full overview might be necessary. Cheers, Λίνουξ (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. Having short "plot teasers" is ridiculous. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added longer summaries. They probably leave much to be desired with links, etc, but it's something to work with. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Those are excellent. Thanks Alex! G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Concerning the recent edits I've made which have been reverted:
1) The use of "23 August 2014 – Present" instead of "23 August 2014 – 8 November 2014" in the right-side info box. All TV articles that I have bookmarked use this format when the show is airing, since the finale date has not yet been reached. Having the finale date in the list of episode should be enough.
2) Connecting the summary of Listen to the events in The Day of the Doctor, whether by linking the "one day" in "where one day he'll return to the barn during the moment of his greatest fear" to the latter article, or directly stating in the summary "a reference to the events of The Day of the Doctor". AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Christmas Special

Out of curiousity, will the Christmas Special's episode be listed with Series 8 (since Moffat said 13 episodes, which Christmas Special unconfirmed), or a new article created for Series 9 for it? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We will probably need more information first, this alone is not too helpful. Λίνουξ (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Christmas special can't be part of Series 8. The 12 episodes from August to November are being released on DVD in November under the title "The Complete Eighth Series". More likely this will be either standalone or the introduction to Series 9. --TARDIS2468 (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Christmas special article

Isn't it quite a bit too soon to have an article about the 2014 Christmas special (Doctor Who)? Shouldn't we at least wait until it has a title? I have changed the article into a redirect; however, if enough people disagree, I'll self revert. (Or you can revert me). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 03:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think with several guest stars announced, the writer and director named and production ongoing, we have enough info to warrant a page. Obviously we can rename it when the title is officially announced. --TARDIS2468 (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I notice that "The Time of the Doctor" existed as 2013 Christmas special (Doctor Who) for quite a while. You're probably right. If no one else weighs in to object, I'll change it back. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've restored it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Writer(s)?

Shouldn't the table head be "Writer(s)" instead of "Writer" since the a few have two or more writers? 173.80.82.179 (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Potential Classics"?

I have read nothing but criticism and abuse online for "Kill The Moon", the 7th episode, rather than the purely positive spin this article puts on it. In fact, I've read far more negative things about Season 8 than complimentary across the board - but nearly all forum entries and therefore unsuitable. Does anybody know a good source of unbiased, un paid-up-by-the-BBC reviews that we can counter the spin with? 124.148.149.153 (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The "criticism and abuse" you've read online is from individual viewers, not from official reviewers, who have given it a positive rating. There's a very big difference. Just because a few disgruntled fans disliked it, doesn't mean that it wasn't a good episode overall. And simply because reviewers gave it a good rating, this doesn't mean that they were paid by the BBC to do so. I personally loved it. If you can find a good source that it was a bad episode, then put it across. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Shorter synopses?

I'd suggest that the current episode synopses in the 'list of episodes' section are quite a bit too long. They're supposed to give a flavour of the episode, not detail the entire plot. It reads as a bit non-encyclopaedic and over-indulgent. These episodes are linked to their own pages, which is the perfect place for a more in-depth look at their plots, but in a list of episodes, it should be just that: a list, not a detailed plot run down of every episode in the series.

My thoughts, anyway. ;) 31.50.100.88 (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely. Mezigue (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor_Who_(series_8)#Should_the_short_summaries_be_that_restricted? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

^That. You are always welcome to contribute with shorter summaries. You may change the vocabulary or the syntax, but the episode's full main plot must be expressed. See: WP:SPOILER Λίνουξ (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No future episode summaries?

Can someone please explain to me why there is a hidden comment in the page source stating, "Do not add summaries until the episode has aired! Copying BBC synopses is COPYVIO."? Is there a project consensus that summaries won't be provided for future episodes? If so, why? I cannot find any explanation on this talk page or the project page.

It would not be a copyright violation to use the BBC as a source. --Matthew (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a copyvio to copy their summaries word for word. Also, since their summaries are very short, it's very difficult to state their summaries in our own words without any copyright violation. So it's just simplest to wait for the episode to air and then summarise the 45+ minute episode in our own words. DonQuixote (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The point of wikipedia is that everything is referenced and sourced. It isn't copyright breaking if you source it and also say it is the BBC's own words. Moffat gave short synopsises for each episode, but if we used that we wouldn't be breaking copyright if we say we are quoting him. There is no harm adding his own synopsises which were released for situations like these and referencing him specifically and say it is a quote. Charlr6 (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, per WP:COPYQUOTE, "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted" (emphasis not mine). And from WP:NFC, "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts" is specifically referred to as an unacceptable use for copyrighted material. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have proof that the synopsises already released are copyrighted? That Moffat said himself are copyrighted? If he did not want people to know, he would not have said them. And "non-free content" does not apply to something people say. You don't pay people to use stuff they've freely said. If you like to follow Wikipedia rules, which there are many and contradicting, then can you please find the proof that what Moffat said of the synopsis is copyrighted and we cannot use? And a 'copyright' at the bottom of a page does not count as that will be for the website itself, and there are plenty of websites that will use what people say. Charlr6 (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The idea behind this is that we aren't infrigning on these shows' abilities to make a living; exposing plots prior to their publication threatens that. Additionally, a BBC blurb about what an episode is going to be about is actually their property. It could also be quite wrong. Since we aren't on a deadline, and there is absolutely no reason to rush to get the story out the door, we wait and form a consensual idea (among the contributing editors) what the episode summary should be. Since no one can see the ep until it airs, we have protocol in place to avoid making any statements about it. This isn't a fansite. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, in law any written passage is immediately and automatically copyrighted either to the writer or to their employer paying for the writing (depending on contractual clauses). It only becomes non-copyrighted if the owner explicitly releases it as such. This is (as alluded to above) tempered by one being allowed to quote a 'reasonable proportion' of the passage or work for purposes of literary criticism or pedagogy (where 'reasonable' is often considered to be no more than 10%), but how much paraphrasing of how much of the test is allowable to get round copyright is a matter of legal debate, which is why Copyright Lawyers make a good living. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Reception

Problem editor called User:AlexTheWhovian|AlexTheWhovian thinks reviews in a US business magazine called Forbes are more relevant than comprehensive DWAS fan polls for the whole season and is removing this post: Doctor Who fans have been very critical of this season with an average of 30% disliking most stories in DWAS polls. http://www.dwasonline.co.uk/poll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.233.159 (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an online poll and it's far from comprehensive. I think there's far more than 200 Doctor Who fans in the world. DonQuixote (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If it was one run by the BBC and had a few tens of thousands of vote, then maybe. 200 out of millions displays and contributes nothing - this is why I've been removing this from the article. Plus, I'm not seeing any average statistics on the link you've given, meaning it's original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's central flaws is that it is not "the peoples' encyclopedia". You can chat to thousands of real-life people who all say the same thing, read blogs, forums etc. and that means nothing. However, one person who voices an opinion in a factually-inaccurate article is considered not only "Reliable" but also "definitive". It is true that Series 8 has seen ratings fall, many people are less than impressed with what they've seen etc. However, Wikipedia only cares about the shill writing the "right-on" review for some corporate website. It's fair to say that the critics who Wikipedia deems to be 'reliable' have fallen over each other to praise Series 8, while the public at large have been a lot less impressed. However, Wikipedia only cares about those few reviewers, not the public at large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.173.149 (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Pick up an encyclopedia in the library - it's not "the people's encyclopedia". The reviewers we use in articles are official reviewers who know what they're talking about, not simply a fan expressing some poorly-explained view. You can't assume to know what the "public at large" think, since you don't know the entire "public at large". However, we can use what reviews say as a reliable source, since it's actually their job to prove what we use. Once more - Wikipedia is a normal encyclopedia. There's no such thing as "the people's encyclopedia". AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOT#FANSITE, WP:NOTGOSSIP. Indeed, we follow some policies. Wikipedia is not a collection of rumors and opinions. We use credible sources. We take editing seriously to create a free encyclopedia, not a questionable one. There is no such thing as a "public opinion", because people are all different. So we base our pages on what we can; reliable sources, as many of them as possible, to represent situations equally, with a neutral point of view. Λίνουξ (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem editor AlexTheWhovian clearly only wants positive reviews, his junk info is based on single reviews written by one person at a US business magazine etc, my negative reviews are from 100's of Doctor Who fans on the DWAS website, AlexTheWhovian comments are a complete joke here and on the actual page. The fact is a large portion of DW fans clearly dislike this season but 1 problem editor here is trying his best to hide the facts. The Moffat fanboy problem editor AlexTheWhovian will no doubt remove more relevant facts i've just posted. Doctor Who fans have been very critical of this season, at it's worst 28% of DWAS website season poll users voted "Kill the Moon" as either "poor" or "awful" while only 4% voted it an "instant classic". REMOVED BY PROBLEM EDITOR AlexTheWhovian Critical reaction to Series 8 has been highly negative from the fans [105]while some journalists have been labelling it a return to form and one of Doctor Who's strongest seasons.[106][107] The series has a calculated score of 80 on Metacritic, signifying "generally favourable reviews". WOULD BE NICE TO GET SOME SUPPORT DEALING WITH THE MOFFAT FANBOY WHO CAN'T HANDLE FACTS AND WANTS AN EDITING WAR04:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC) 2.26.233.159 (talk)

It's not a scientific poll and therefore not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. You're wasting your time. Ratemonth (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Critical Reception disconnect

The critics' score on meta-critic- referenced in the article- is considerably higher than the user reviews, 8 vs 6.5. As is often the case, the user reviews are polarized but most reviews are negative. Could it be worth mentioning this disconnect? --81.157.36.201 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The critic's scores are a reliable sources, whereas "fan" sources are not.

Certainly fan reviews are much more likely to be polarized or subjected to other biases, but there is no reason why a critic is closer to some kind of objective reality than a fan. With a large enough group size I think a user consensus may be worth mentioning. 81.157.36.201 (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. That is, anything on here is a collection of what reliable sources have to say about a topic. Unless a reliable source mentions any of this, it can't be mentioned here--no matter how true it might be. DonQuixote (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a conscious attempt by problem users here (Moffat fans) to distort and lie about the critical reception of this season that many people have been highly critical of -- both fans and critics. http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-reviews/doctor-who-death-heaven-review-4594413. Critical reaction to Series 8 has been highly mixed, with some labelling it a season with serious main character problems 2.26.233.159 (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

References