Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Ratings Graph

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I like the ratings charts listed underneath many television shows episode lists. I think they really add to the article. However Doctor Who is an unusual show in that it has Christmas specials and other specials, which means the format used for the charts on other shows wouldn't fully work. Does anybody think this is a good idea and would be able to find a way to tweak the potential ratings table template to make it work for Doctor Who (the revived series that is, wouldn't quite work for the classic era - hence why I'm posting this on the talk page of this specific article)? Maybe even just a graph with every episode of the revived era to show the trends in ratings since 2005? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This has indeed been discussed before, and the agreement was not to include it, especially given the complicatedness of it and the fact that this page is already rather crowded. The discussion is likely in the archives for this article. -- Alex^TW 14:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Episode name

Series 11 episode 9: the title is listed as The Witch Finders however the source gives the title as The Witchfinders. I'm not sure how to edit it as the table is linked. Shortchange (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Shortchange:  Fixed -- Alex^TW 10:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

There needs to be some explanation of what AI means.

I came to this page and i see a column marked AI and I have no idea what it is for, what it represents. I've checked through the article, in the introduction, I followed to doctor who news website to see if they explain it and there is nothing anywhere that I can find that says what it is. if the article is going to list data it needs to say what that data actually is. ai could be anything. all international? is it international ratings? if so, what do the figures represent? millions? how do we have international ratings before the british ratings for the most recent episode? it doesn't make much sense. Drag-5 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drag-5: It stands for "appreciation index" and it's a measure of how much viewers enjoyed the episode basically. There's a link to the article I linked here in the Series 1 episode list. TedEdwards 19:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Linking AI in each table header, just like Season 1 and Series 1, wouldn't go amiss either... -- Alex^TW 00:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Abbr should be used here (it's used only in some tables), in the same way as it is used for Production (and in other templates for Number). AI could also be linked in the same way as the Rating/share column in Template:Television episode ratings links to Nielsen ratings. --Gonnym (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe it already is in the Season 1 and Series 1 articles. It just needs duplicating throughout. -- Alex^TW 23:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Feature-length Season 37 premiere

An editor has insisted that an old reference by a non-BBC source to the length of The Woman Who Fell to Earth as "feature-length", despite the episode being only 61.5 minutes long plus an extended preview during the closing credits. While such erroneous information may well be valid trivia in an article about the episode (and I've copied that information there, despite my belief it's of dubious value), it seems unnecessary in this particular article, where there's only a couple of lines of information about the entire season, let alone individual episodes. In my view, the summary should be as succinct as possible, with extraneous details (not to mention trivia) belonging elsewhere. Does anyone see why this erroneous information should stay in this particular article? And if so, is there a better source than The Radio Times. Nfitz (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

BBC Newsround: The series will have a 10-week run of 50-minute episodes in autumn 2018, starting with a feature-length hour long show for the launch. BBC Media Centre: In more exclusive news, it is confirmed that the new series will be a ten week run of fifty minute episodes in Autumn 2018, kicking off with a feature length hour for the opening launch. There's your BBC sources. -- Alex^TW 00:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"feature-length hour" I'd hope! I'm not sure what that would mean without a hyphen! Surely other 1-hour TV shows (without commercials) aren't referred to as feature length. I believe we should simply quantify the length, without using clearly erroneous or misleading adjectives. Nfitz (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not up to us to determine what they mean, or how they use it, else that is textbook WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Wikipedia reports what is given in reliable sources, such as the BBC. -- Alex^TW 01:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

But why in this particular article? Surely it's best (and already) mentioned in the episode-level article, rather than the season-level article or this article that covers two decades! There is so much else that is contained in reliable sources, that isn't in this particular article. Even mentioning the episode lengths at all seems a bit overkill, let alone adding questionable descriptions of the already-quantified episode length. Nfitz (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The reason that it's applicable to this article is due to the massive number of format changes that this series experienced in comparison to previous series', and thus, it is necessary to summarize these. Yes, it's in the episode article, but it needs a summary section. See the other episode article, and how it summarizes changes in the programme's air day, the changes in the number of episodes and format, etc. -- Alex^TW 23:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Nfitz (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Nfitz You can't just say you disagree without giving any reason. That doesn't aid the consensus-building process at all. TedEdwards 18:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

User:TedEdwards I stated my reasons above. Why in two line summary of the entire season, it it both necessary to quantify the episode length of one episode, and reference to it as being referred to as "feature-length". There is so much more detail about the season not mentioned in those two lines, that it seems overkill to spend so much of the time discussing the length of a simple episode, that aired in a one-hour timeslot. It's both WP:TMI, if not WP:TRIVIA. The other editor, seems to avoid this issue ... and instead, seems to be talking about something else. Format changes? Similar length episodes have aired in several recent seasons without even a single mention above, let alone three mentions! The blurb is already about 3 times longer than many others. Yes, mention Sundays. Yes mention that it's now generally 4 to 5-minutes longer than it used to be. However 15 words describing the length of one episode needs significant tightening. I'm surprised that such blatantly poor writing needs a detailed discussion in order to fix. Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe before this dispute began the sentence was shorter. TedEdwards 20:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Your not wrong there. And I've tried to make it far more succinct. I believe we need a neutral editor to weigh in ... though I'm starting to see why many editors won't touch this topic area with a barge pole. The amount of effort necessary to make a change, other than fixing a typo, hardly seems worth the effort. Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the length of the episode is relevant to this article, but the BBC's marketing description of 'feature-length' became redundant once the exact length was known. Support removing the final clause of that sentence. U-Mos (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Redirected talk page?

I've noticed that as of September, Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) redirects to here. Apologies if there was a discussion for this, I have looked among the various redirect-obscured archives (surely a problem in itself) and couldn't find anything. I don't know of any precedent for a redirected talk page where the article is not redirected, including at Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes and Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20), which the earlier split between these articles was modelled on. As well as being potentially misleading for editors, it will surely cause problems if and when the article/s come to be renominated for featured/assessed within the various WikiProjects. @AlexTheWhovian: was there a reason you decided to do this? U-Mos (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Centralized discussion. I'd forgotten about this discussion, apologies. Thanks for the heads up; I'll be looking into a consensus to redirect the other articles provided as examples as well. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this supported by any policy or guideline? U-Mos (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I only stated "I'll be looking into a consensus to redirect the other articles". -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Would it be worth going to WP:Village pump (proposals) for making this sort of redirect, as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS might not be enough, and a Wikipedia wide consensus may be better? --TedEdwards 23:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I could see the benefits of that. When I get the time, I'll type up a post for VP. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ratings shares

I was wondering if it would be good to add the ratings shares to the summary table or each series' tables? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukerose2002 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

They would be belong in the uses of {{Television episode ratings/consolidated}}, but no column exists for such data. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

was/is terminology

@U-Mos: Your recent WP:BOLD edit has been reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. It seems that there are two interpretations on the guideline (note: guideline, not policy) given. I'll start a discussion here for you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This was not a BOLD edit. As I have pointed out, the guidelines at MOS:TVNOW are explicit on this matter (this is not a non-fiction or a live show), so should be followed unless there is consensus to diverge from them. Currently there is not. Requesting for comment below to resolve. U-Mos (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Turning everything into a Requested Move or Request for Comment without actually taking the time or effort to discuss first. A bit disappointing of you... -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

U-Mos Well, evidently the guidlines aren't explicit, otherwise there wouldn't be a difference of opinion to what it means. --TedEdwards 23:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Although the subject of the sentences in question is the character of the Doctor, I've noticed on re-reading that MOS:TVNOW has a gap for actors/writers/producers etc. of a fictional TV work. I will raise that at WP:Village pump (policy) once the RfC has concluded. U-Mos (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Will you be starting an RFC there too, or holding an actual discussion? -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Matter raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Gap in MOS:TVNOW. U-Mos (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the actors who have played the character of the Doctor be referred to in the past or present tense when introducing lists of the episodes they star in? MOS:TVNOW guidelines relevant. See diff for contentious edit. 23:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Past tense The production of these shows is long since over, and barring possible recurrences, those actors aren't likely to play the roles again. This is similar to how we say "this episode was produced by X and written by Y". We're not talking about anything within the "present" of the episode here wehre TVNOW would apply, nor related to the availability of the TV show. --Masem (t) 00:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment It depends on the context. In the film, he is portrayed by this actor. In 1956, this actor portrayed this character. That is, when describing the work of fiction itself, anything presented in the work is in present tense, but when describing the creation of the work, then it's in past tense. As to the passages in this article, it's a little ambiguous: The Tenth Doctor [is] portrayed by David Tennant [in the series 2] or The Tenth Doctor [was] portrayed by David Tennant [in 2006] DonQuixote (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Past tense Just realized I never commented here. Complete agreement with Masem, who explained it extremely well, though I also fully support the latter proposition as given by DonQuixote. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Past tense per above. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Present tense. DonQuixote has it right. If we're talking about the confines of the show's narrative (which appears to be the case here), we want to use present tense. If we are talking about events that happen surrounding behind the production of the show (that is, chronological events in actual history) then we want to use past tense. Any ambiguity about whether this is within the scope of the show's narrative or its production, keep in mind that the article already consists of this narrative present tense, which seems perfectly within the scope of an article about show episodes. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Minisodes

Okay since the pages have been separated per "classic' era and "revival" era. There is no reason to list the minisodes separately as the page won't clog.

I want to propose we add a "other" section or we put the correct minisodes under each era?

Counting prequels as additional scenes of their respective stories.

Under Tennant we could have Born Again, The Infinite Quest, Time Crash, Dreamland and Music of the Spheres and under Smith we'd have Space and Time, Death Is the Only Answer, Night and the Doctor, Good as Gold, Pond Life, Clara and the TARDIS, The Inforarium and Rain Gods. (similar to TARDIS wiki)

Also we should include Dimensions in Time in the "classic" page.

Now some fans may not count these but I think it's silly to let new viewers looking the show up think they don't exist. Our views of canon shouldn't affect broadcast stories, let's let the reader decide if they count them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.146.201 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is for broadcast episodes only, and all the above-mentioned supplementary episodes can be found at List of supplementary Doctor Who episodes. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ryan Graham's relationship being a plot point.

This was addressed in a lot of episodes. The Woman Who Fell To Earth, The Ghost Monument, Arachnids in the UK, It Takes You Away, The Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos, and Resolution. It may have even been more, but these are just the ones I can 100% remember.

Some of the other story arcs mentioned for other Series for a lot more minor than this, including "The exit of the Ponds" and "The Great Intelligence" for Series 7. Holderness212 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

You could be WP:BOLD and add it see where we go from there. Personally, I'd be inclined to take the theme summaries out entirely as I don't see what purpose they serve*, but I'm not sufficiently bothered to try it. I think the most important thing is brevity, this is supposed to be a list, after all - so please be brief if you do add something.

*thematic information more properly belongs the series/season and episode articles, I think. Amedee123 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't followed the edits properly, happy this is going down the WP:BRD route - the rest of my opinion still stands. Happy for other editors to work towards a WP:CONSENSUS. Will just mention WP:OSE as something to consider. Amedee123 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Two lists?

Why are there two lists of episodes of one show? They should be merged! --2003:C1:4F2B:2555:D577:15D8:5D92:F386 (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Because of a discussion that was held before the split that resulted in a consensus for two articles. One is for the classic era, the other revived. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is mention of the film removed?

That edit seemed fine, it's weird not to mention it. 86.129.146.11 (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Where so? -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Episode/Story Numbering

I've noticed that after S9 Episodes 11&12, the 'Story' numbers are out of sync with those on the Tardis Doctor Who wiki. This is due to Wikipedia counting the two stories as separate, as stories 261 and 262, whereas the other list uses 261a and 261b. I was wondering whether they should be changed here to match up for continuity, and so there isn't conflicting information? Thanks 144.32.240.125 (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikias are not considered reliable sources (see WP:USERG). Tertiary sources, like Wikipedia, work by citing and summarising reliable sources. If Doctor Who Magazine prints out another list of serials and episodes, one that includes the recent series, we'll be sure to reflect that. DonQuixote (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

See the five discussions linked in the header at Talk:Doctor Who (series 9). As already stated, Wikias are not reliable sources; it is the TARDIS Wikia that has their numbering scheme incorrect. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ratings for Doctor Who episodes are inconsistent

I have noticed that the ratings being quoted on this page are inconsistent. This is a problem due to a bad source of data.

They are taken from the source https://guide.doctorwhonews.net/info.php?detail=ratings&type=date which for season 11 and season 12 has used a different measurement for it's rating figures.

You can see the problem by looking at the data on www.doctorwhotv Here you can see the three sets of data for each episode, "overnight", "consolidated" and "live plus". So you can see that up to season 10 Wikipedia is showing the "Consolidated" figures, but for season 11 and 12 the "Live Plus" figures are being used. This is inconsistent and misleading. The consolidated figures seem to me to be the much better figures to use.

Links to the last few seasons on www.doctorwhotv

http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-series-12-2020-uk-ratings-accumulator-91601.htm http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-series-11-2018-uk-ratings-accumulator-88397.htm http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-series-10-2017-uk-ratings-accumulator-84045.htm http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-series-9-2015-uk-ratings-accumulator-76154.htm http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-series-8-ratings-accumulator-66394.htm http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-series-7-ratings-accumulator-2013-46939.htm

Consistency with older series (before catch up tv) would mean using the "overnight" figure, but I would agree that there is a need to reflect change in technology and viewing habits. An arbitrary shift from "consolidated" to "live plus" just seems like "shifting the goalposts", and brings all the data into disrepute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.144.149 (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Resolution

Resolution was filmed alongside S11 and aired about a month after S11 ended, which was a YEAR before S12. It is included in neither DVD set, so why on earth is it included with S12 on this page? 92.30.91.110 (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment, it's included in the S12 bluray set. DonQuixote (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I think some of the confusion stems from the fact that Resolution is included in the region 2 UK set. It isn't in the region one US release. Per WP:STRONGNAT this article defaults to the UK info MarnetteD|Talk 15:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"Spyfall, Part 1" & "Spyfall, Part 2" Should Be Changed

I think "Spyfall, Part 1" and "Spyfall, Part 2" should be changed to "Spyfall, Part One" and "Spyfall, Part Two" as the intros for these episodes show the numbers "1" and "2" are in word form instead of numerical form.

--Euanperrin17 (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Per the BBC's website: [1][2] -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Response To Alex 21

I'd have the numbers in word form (as shown by both of the episodes intros) but if the BBC have shown the numbers to be in numerical form then I guess the titles on the page can stay as they are. I guess the numbers can be in both numerical and word form so that clears things up.

--Euanperrin17 (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 Special

Nicholas Payne I will start a discussion here for you to contribute to, regarding the entry for the New Year's 2020 episode. You must discuss the content here if you dispute it, rather than edit-war. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect this is an open encyclopedic website. People are free to chose how they want to discuss it, without any rules someone decides they want. TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

TheMightyAllBlacks, that is not how Wikipedia works. You do not get to decide to edit-war over content, that is a Wikipedia policy. If an edit of yours is disputed, you are required to discuss it. It's really that simple. Merry Christmas! -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Again with all due respect.

There isn't an edit war.

The program hasn't been even played yet. But when it does and I chose to comment, if I even do, I am not going to do it under some heading someone has made up claiming it has to be there.

Sorry. Tough luck...TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

TheMightyAllBlacks, do you have something to discuss or not? If not, you're just beating a dead horse. What are you doing here? Are you the same person behind the account I first pinged? -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

No not yet

I have no idea who you pinged.

I am just pointing out that when the program plays, people can comment and edit where they like provided it is verified and it doesn't need to be under your heading.TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 07:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

If you've nothing to contribute, then there's nothing to see here. Ta ta. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Numbering scheme

I'm not sure how I've never noticed this, but if we look at the entry for 13x01 on the official Doctor Who website here, it actually includes the story number, meaning story numbers are no longer "not official designations", as the lead of both episode articles state, but now reliably sourced. (Of course, the rest of the commentary in that paragraph remains true, but this is a legitimate source.) -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this appears to be the official numbering now - Shada is 108.5, Trial of a Timelord is one story, and it also includes Time Lord Victorious as 201.5. I think this is to promote the 13th Doctor's swan song as the 300th story (much as Dragonfire was promoted as the 150th and "Planet of the Dead" as the 200th Etron81 (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Go and search Doctor who century special and see the title has been released

Go and search Doctor who century special and see the title has been released 2A00:23C5:ECA1:7801:BD93:E3C2:1F9C:AE09 (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Indagate (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"Fifteenth Doctor"

Neither the BBC, Bad Wolf or the fandom at large established Ncuti Gatwa is officially identified as the "Fifteenth Doctor." The line establishing him as such has a source linked but those sources do not refer to him in such a way. Considering Ncuti Gatwa was officially announced as playing "the next doctor" before David Tennant appeared in the role, until officially released materials clarify the title, it makes more sense to identify Gatwa as the "Fourteenth Doctor." Labeling Tennat as "the Fourteenth Doctor" makes as much sense as doing so for Sacha Dhawan or Jo Martin, as they both succeeded the role from Jodie Whittaker; or even Peter Davidson or Seventh Doctor within Whitaker's final episode. The same (ambiguous) sources are used to falsely identify Tennent as "the fourteenth doctor" in The Doctor (Doctor Who)#Reprising the role Robotsin (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Robotsin [3] quotes: it was none other than David Tennant who appeared as the Fourteenth Doctor, and The path to Ncuti’s Fifteenth Doctor. That makes your entire discussion void. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and here's the official Doctor Who website's character entry on the Fourteenth Doctor. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Doctor Numbering

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the doctor's numberings are off. Jodie Whittaker almost certainly played the 14th Doctor and Peter Capaldi the 13th Doctor. The problem is with the number for The War Doctor. Matt Smith's Doctor was probably the 12th (he thought he wouldn't regenerate because he was the 12th), but he acted in concurrence with The War Doctor or The War Doctor's maybe the first iteration in the fictional (Whoverse) time line. ProofCreature (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Series 14 (2024)

Russell T Davies has confirmed the new series will be called Season One, as per SFX magazine. This article and the subsequent main article for series 14 will need amending. 86.159.10.222 (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Moffat said the same thing 13 years ago. DonQuixote (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that we wait at least until these episodes show up on iPlayer and are actually listed under new numbering. No need to make quick changes. Fanowaty (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, there's WP:NORUSH, we'll absolutely go with what's official, but there's no harm in waiting until it's officially changed to do that. El Dubs (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Fanowaty: on iPlayer the series is currently labeled as "Doctor Who (2005-2022)", that combined with Russel's announcement of the count starting fresh seems like reason enough to believe it's actually going to happen this time. - K-popguardian (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"I think it will happen" is not enough reason to happen. Mitchy Power, your page move was unacceptable and has been reverted as undiscussed. We had exactly the same thing at Doctor Who (series 5)#Development. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The page you link talks about the difference in reporting over the series number. The Series 14 page deserves the same note in it's development section Mitchy Power (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I Did and you lot reverted that so clearly it seems a consensus on this little fact is needed as well. Mitchy Power (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You didn't add it as an update, you added it as a complete rewrite of the article. Look at how the Series 5 article includes this sort of update. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done [4] -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

We just got an edit by an anon and I mistakenly reverted it thinking it's unsourced, then I saw it's actually properly sourced, but the consensus here seems to be to wait so feel free to revert it again if desired.

Also, if we are to adopt the new naming in the future, what would be the proper name? "Doctor Who (season 1, 2024)" like what someone moved it to or something else? alexiaa 13:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we best leave pre-emptiveness to until any official confirmation, and if it does indeed change, the best way forward would probably be an RFC where we list all of our ideas, since it won't go along anything that WP:NCTV supports. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

With the introduction of a new section on iPlayer (Doctor Who (2023-)), combined with the other 'Doctor Who (2005-2022)', and the SFX interview wherein RTD says the new series will be 'Season 1', surely an official BBC press release now is only a formality? Estaphel (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It is still referred to as Series 14 by reliable sources. "Official" does not mean the overruling statement. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Doctor Who TV did a poll on whether people were for calling the new series "Series 14" or "Season 1". 83.9% were for calling it Series 14. I know it's not a reliable source but I think it's a clear indication of people's thoughts on this. 82.26.31.56 (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not a reliable source, though it continues to be called Series 14 by secondary sources. -- Alex_21 _TALK 19:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it is official, now that the special episode "The Star Beast" has been released, it has been released on the 2023 version of the show on iPlayer. So I think it's safe to say it will be Season 1 instead of Series 14, even if we think it's strange and unnecessary. If the BBC is confirming that this run of Doctor Who going to start with Season 1 then I guess that's the way it'll be. SgtBreadStick (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree. BBC Iplayer separates Doctor Who 2005-2022 from the new star beast which is listed as Doctor Who 2023-

Basically it definitely should be given a new page StevoLaker (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If it is continued to be reported by secondary sources as Series 14, then we need to continue listing it as such. If, however, this changes, then there would need to be an RFC on how we should proceed with any article titling. We also definitely do not need a new episodes page here on Wikipedia solely given the iPlayer grouping; this is simply a list of all episodes of the programme since 2005. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

FYI: Whilst there's no single "official" source for the season title - BBC & Disney will both be distibuting it, and may use their own titles - the BBC is listing new episodes under "Doctor Who (2023-)".

Additionally, "season one" is the phrase used by many news sources, and has been confirmed by Davies.

TMDB, IMDB, and TVDB can't agree on the topic: episode numbers and season's differ between the three sources. 79.135.104.16 (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

And that is why it is best for us to also not join the fray of confusion, and remain with the status quo at this point. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

My two cents: IMO "season one" is supported by the most authoritative sources:

• I think there is some confusion here over secondary and primary sources. In the context of a TV show, what is presented in that media is a primary source. Outside commentary is a secondary source. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Sources_of_information.
• Therefore RTD's reported comments on season numbering is a secondary source--and more authoritative than other secondary sources that may refer to it as series 14.
• In this case there seem to primary sources as well in the change in numbering in the iplayer catalogue (I see this as analogous to the season title on a DVD cover).
• Before we move the page, we will need to tease out some consensus on how to do that practically while avoiding conflicts with Old Who naming--whether that's "Doctor Who (2024, Season 1)" or "(Bad Wolf Studios, Season 1)" or something else. I had a look for other shows that had multiple revivals for precedent, but they seem to sidestep that issue by not having separate pages for each season (e.g. Twilight Zone.
• I disagree with Alex_21 that "it is best for us to... remain with the status quo". Calling it "series 14" does not elevate us above the conflict; it's not avoiding a decision it's choosing to call it "series 14" (!) and therefore taking a side which has to be supported by a consensus.
• Although I think the sources support naming it "season one", if we want to avoid conflict until further sources are published on it next year, we should choose a neutral title in the meantime like "2024 series".

--JCrue (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It's remaining with the WP:STATUSQUO, and neither of those suggestions would comply with WP:NCTV. Per WP:PRIMARY, Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved - that's RTD. We also don't base sources on their level of "authoritativeness", so before we start any such discussion, I recommend you brush up on your knowledge of Wikipedia's sourcing policies and naming guidelines, instead of making suggestions against them. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Alex_21, thank you for starting the RFC. I wanted to respond to the comments you made here specifically about what I had to say.

• Re status quo. I'm not changing or reverting anything, so I'm not sure how the advice from WP:STATUSQUO, "Avoid reverting during discussion" so as to avoid an edit-war, is relevant. In my previous comment, what I meant to convey that the "status quo" is not a good reason not to improve or change something on wikipedia to reflect new information from reliable sources.
• Re: WP:NCTV. NCTV does not provide any guidance relevant to the specifics of this case (three shows/"reboots" with the same name each having season/series ones). This is why I mentioned looking for precedents in other shows.

As you know, NCTV is a guideline on best practice for naming conventions, not a set of rules to which we must comply. It is therefore up to us as editors to produce a new consensus for situations not covered in the guidance, like this one.

• Re: primary sources. This is really getting into the weeds about semantics, but the Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, which I was referring to above says the following:

"Primary information is gathered from primary sources about the fictional universe, such as the original work of fiction or an affiliated work (e.g., another episode of the same TV series) ...

"Secondary information is external to the fictional universe; it is usually taken from secondary sources about the work or the fictional world it describes, or from primary and secondary sources about the author and the creation of the work."

(emphasis mine).

• Re Authority of sources: the authoritativeness of a source is a principle consideration in the reliability of the source. WP:RS says, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." (emphasis mine)

In this example, in the case of what season of a show a production is, the lead creative and executive producer leading the work is a more authoritative source--and therefore more reliable--than a source like (just for example) TheTVDB, which is not affiliated with the show.

Thanks again for starting the rfc, which I'm sure will stimulate helpful discussion in teasing out consensus on this issue. All the best JCrue (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, the list of stories on the official Doctor Who website now lists 'The Church on Ruby Road' and officially confirms that it is part of 'Season 1'! --HTS126 (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's about time we start an RFC on this, on whether we should move it, and if so, to what title. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The RFC can be found at Talk:Doctor Who (series 14)#RFC: Title of this article, and following seasons. Please place all opinions and !votes there. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Free use images in articles

Hello there. This is my rationale as the uploader for the use of the thumbnails on BBC iPlayer in articles as free use for individual episodes.

I would first like to argue that the use of an image for each episode is necessary and follows NFCC#8, that is, that its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Ultimately, Doctor Who episodes are Visual Media, and understanding that visual media is therefore dependent on seeing it. As File:Boom Town.jpg puts it (I can't include it here due to fair use policy), the content of the photo is "unique and iconic [to the] episode". Additionally, Doctor Who is a sci-fi program, and incorporates themes, concepts, and characters that have been made up for/by the show. Therefore, it is necessary for the reader to see these monsters and other concepts in order to understand them - they will not have been exposed to them before and it ultimately cannot be explained in prose. How do you teach a reader what a slitheen is without a picture (like that of File:DoctorWhoWorldWarThreethumb.png which I cannot include here because of fair use policy). Therefore, omitting the images (as would happen if it were deleted) would affect the reader's ability to understand the sci-fi concepts that each episode includes.

Secondly, I'd like to argue that using the BBC iPlayer thumbnail is the best choice for a fair use image of the episode. The BBC have themselves suggested that the image represents the episode overall for viewers, as they included it as the thumbnail. Therefore, it is the best at summarising and explaining the concepts of the episode. Indeed, every thumbnail contains either the monster or a key character, each one representing and explaining the episode. Choosing a screenshot would counteract that, as it would be less of a guarantee as being covered by what I have written above.

If you have any questions, comments, or counter-arguments please don't hesitate to reply to this, but please tag me and admins, please don't delete any images until this has been settled!"

Kind regards, JacobTheRox (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You're not bringing anything new to the table. The episode articles had images like the ones you're wanting before the image rules got stricter. All of the above and similar arguments got struck down for being insufficient. DonQuixote (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@JacobTheRox: Thanks for starting this discussion, JacobTheRox. As for the Boom Town image, I thought the described purpose on the file image (which you quoted) was poor, so I have changed it as the article is was used in indicated a much better purpose for the image.

Regarding your mention of the World War Three image, saying it's the only way to depict a slitheen is through a non-free image, I do have to mention there is in that article a free image (File:290707-022 CPS (3998744058).jpg) of a slitheen, which was taken at a DW experience. So it's not the only way to show what a monster looks like, considering there are several similar images on other Doctor Who episode articles

Going to your main argument that an image is necessary to represents [sic] the episode overall for viewers, I would say that all an image to represent the episode overall does is remind someone who's seen the episode which episode it is. A relatively arbritrary shot (OK the images you've added aren't random screenshots) would not however increase someone-who's-never-seen-the-episode's understanding of that episode by any measurable degree, as it's one frame out of about 10000. That's not to say some of the DW episode articles couldn't be improved with a non-free image, it's just that image would have to be used to help explain something talked about in the article. For example, say you found a few secondary sources talking about this scene from the Empty Child where Dr. Constantine becomes a gas mask zombie and added discussion of those sources into the article, you could probably then illustrate the scene they were talking about with a screenshot of that scene.

Finally regarding your request that the images not be deleted until this discussion is settled, because of potential copyright infringement it is the case that unless the use of the images can be clearly justified and agreed on by the community, the images will be deleted on or after 28 January (7 days after I placed the deletion tag on them contesting that they met NFCC#8). This is standard on Wikipedia and unfortunately if there is no consensus before then, the images will be deleted. However if need be this discussion can continue on afterwards. --TedEdwards 21:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@DonQuixote Personally I don't think this matters. Ultimately whether or not photos should be allowed should be independent of whether or not they have been in the past, and on how well other images meet the guidelines. I think they meet the criteria, and vaguely saying that my reasons are inadequate isn't fair or helpful. Please may you go into more detail about what is insufficient about my arguments to meet the criteria. JacobTheRox (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, you're not bringing anything new to the table. Search the talk page archives. For example: this. DonQuixote (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: I'm sorry to say this, but I've found your attitude towards Jacob to be extremely dimissive. Obviously you and I agree on these articles having non-free images, but I have explained my opinion, which seems to align with the WP:Doctor Who and wider WP:TV community, to Jacob, not just here but on their talk page. You however just say "Wikipedia's already discussed this", rather than even attempt to explain why Wikipedia has made this decision. I do not believe the attitude you've shown here makes Wikipedia appear like a welcoming, thoughtful place that listens to everyone making good faith arguments (which Jacob has done) regardless of whether you agree with the point they're making, which it should be. Obviously there are times when you might have to be a bit firm to some editors (but I don't think here), but that still can be done politely. --TedEdwards 23:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but there were several long discussions of which I wasn't involved because I wasn't an expert. Sorry that the only thing I could do was to direct him to previous discussions where they explained it better than I ever could. DonQuixote (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Don. This has been an issue raised and discussed many times; reiterating the same thing everytime is not a constructive use of anyone's time. However, remember that talk pages are to discuss content; issues of conduct can be raised on user talk pages. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of 2023 Christmas Special in Series 14 instead 2023 specials

I'm increasingly confused why the 2023 Christmas special, that aired a couple of weeks after the 2023 specials, is listed with Series 14 (2024) instead of the 2023 specials. I realize that the logic has to do with the production schedule - and if Series 14 had started in January then I could see some logic. But it's still months away. Meanwhile the 2008 Christmas Special (The Next Doctor) was filmed as part of Series 4 (2008), but is listed in the 2008 to 2010 specials with the four 2009/2010 episodes.

There seems a lack of consistency here - that becomes even more inconsistent with the large gap between the 2023 special and the 2024 series. Thoughts? Thoughts from anyone else, than the person who normally quickly responds? Nfitz (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As you said, because it was produced with Series 14, it's rather simple. Previous Christmas specials are included based upon the home media release they were included with. There was a recent discussion at the relevant WikiProject as to where to include the latest specials, and this abides by the consensus of that discussion. The gap between TCoRR and Series 14 remains minimal in the face of inclusions such as TDTWaTW and Series 6/7, or LC and Series 9/10. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

TCoRR? TDTWaTW? LC (Loose Cannon?) I'm not familiar with any of those Acronyms - can you link them? But as I said - what does everyone else think? Nfitz (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It makes the most sense to keep it organized by production order/home media releases. It was also recently discussed here.

Acronyms:

• TCoRR - "The Church on Ruby Road" (2024)
• TDTWaTW - "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" (2011)
• LC - "Last Christmas" (2014)

TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The above is correct; easily notable by referring to the series I referenced. You can see "what does everyone else think" at the discussion TDW has linked. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the official Doctor Who site has Church on Ruby Road as part of Series 14 (well, Season 1, actually, but that's a different discussion) Etron81 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Series 14 is actually series 1 of a new era

According to BBC, the season which is listed here as "series 14", is officially called series 1, and appears to be the start of a new "era" of Doctor Who. Should we consider updating this page to reflect what the broadcaster has published? See [5]the programme page from BBC One. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 05:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

There's actually a discussion semi-relating to this topic at Talk:Doctor Who series 14#Formal requested move. We are discussing the possibility of moving the articles. Feel free to chime in there! TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)