Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Series vs. Season

I think we should title the first Eccleston series '2005 Season', as that seems to be the least controversial title(without specifying whether it is to be considered a continuation of the previous series or a new series entirely).

Actually, it should still be Series 1 because that's how the production team are referring to it. The 2005 is just to make it distinct from Season One, et al. --khaosworks 17:49, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

What's a serial? Isn't this just a list of episodes? Evercat 14:15, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Dr. Who ran in stories consisting of several episodes. Each story was named not each episode. The stories were of widely differing lengths and number of episodes. Rmhermen 16:29, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

As near as I can figure, the terms "show, series, & serial" in the UK translate as "series, season, & story arc" in that order. Arctic.gnome

Not so. Show = programme, serial = in several parts. GraemeLeggett 06:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People I know use the word "series" to mean "programme/show", especialy when there is more than one related programme, like the five Star Trek series. A "story arc" is a chain of episodes longer than a two-parter, so it can be used to discribe the original Doctor Who. Arctic.gnome

We're talking about the (admittedly confusing) traditional UK useage, though. --22:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

---

Note that for the early Hartnell years [...] there was not yet a concept of a multi-episode 'serial'.

Not true. The episodes may have been individually titled, but each serial was made as a single entity. —Paul A 01:39, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Need for a common format for serial synopses

Is there a common format for episode synopses or can we settle on one? I propose the following

Title is a serial in the British science fiction television series Doctor Who, originally aired in X parts from DATE to DATE. Anything especially significant about the episode (Anniversary, etc.) can be put here. If it is an early Hartnell serial, episode titles should be listed:

• Title
• Title, (etc.)

SYNOPSIS (as subsection) {msg: Spoiler}

Full summary, including ending.

NOTES (as subsection)

Anything else significant about the episode that doesn't warrant an entry in the first section. For examples of this format, see Spearhead From Space and Remembrance of the Daleks. --khaosworks 20:00, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we need a consistent standard, and that seems pretty good. Is it worth putting in a (main) cast list? I've been doing that with the episodes that I've put in (see, for example, Marco Polo). I've also put the series number in the intro, but I agree that transmission date is important too. I'd put anything more than that (anniversaries, etc) into the "notes" section.--ALargeElk 08:47, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think a cast list or series number is necessary, myself (perhaps if we included the official serial designation, like AA, or 7B). It doesn't look right on the page somehow. I would be more interested in the plot or the significance of the episode if any.--khaosworks 03:21, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Other big thing - the correct term is story or serial, not episode. The series number is not something to put in as there is no official designation for any of them and some of the later ones generate a lot of controversy as it's not clear what should and shouldn't be counted. Timrollpickering 08:03, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I use the term serial consistently in my entries (see my proposed format), but there's always the occasional slip. Can we then settle on whether or not to include cast list and then start doing the individual serial entries to the proposed format? --khaosworks 08:48, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I see no problem with cast lists. I would also use the production codes - these are mainly unambiguous and are generally used by reference works and the like. Timrollpickering 09:39, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

What about writer/director? Writers seem quite important, which is why I've included them in the ones I've done, but I do appreciate that Wikipedia isn't the Radio Times. Also, I think we need to say, "XXX is the Yth serial in the Zth season", rather than just using a production code which wouldn't necessarily mean anything to a non-Doctor Who fan (though why a non-fan would be looking up The Mark of the Rani, for example, I'm not too sure!) Oh, and can we make sure that alternative titles, where they are not ambiguous, are redirected to whatever title we use. --ALargeElk 10:07, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Saying where a story is in a season isn't a problem - my problem is with attempts to number all the stories from the start which have appeared in some lists elsewhere. This breaks down because of arguments over "is the Trial 1 or 4 stories" (and the BBC took different views on different ocassions!), does Shada count etc... Timrollpickering 10:17, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Need for an agreed format for the individual serial page names

Some of the links would be more appropriate for articles on concepts (e.g. The Daleks), whilst others lead to non-Who stuff like The Awakening. How about we retitle all the pages to something like The Daleks (Doctor Who serial) to provide a consistency and avoid confusion? Timrollpickering 03:28, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We already have pages for Dalek, Auton, Silurian (Doctor Who) and so on. The Daleks is still the most common title (we don't want to use The Mutants because that would confuse it with the Pertwee serial of the same name) - the alternative is to call it The Dead Planet. I agree, though that The Awakening needs to be disamb'd. IMO, we should only tag it with (Doctor Who Serial) where it is necessary. To put the suffix on every serial seems a big clumsy. khaosworks 06:03, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't advocate using The Mutants as the page title for the Dalek story (though there should be an acknowledgement on there that that is the original title and the reason why it isn't used) but Wikipedia does encourage consistency and standardised formates on large series of related article titles. Timrollpickering 10:21, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd say there's no need for suffixes except where necessary to disambiguate - there's going to be no more than half a dozen or so like that. --ALargeElk 08:47, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

---

The Trial of a Time Lord - One story or four? Individual titles?

The Official Site's episode guide calls its entry for the last part of Season 23 The Ultimate Foe so why doesn't Wikipedia? PMA 04:08, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, they've changed it since I last looked. To be honest the whole season went out with one story title and was clearly intended to be one story, regardless of how the internal production was structured. The confusion arises because "The Ultimate Foe" was in fact a working title for the third bit, and only applied to the fourth by people outside the production office, presumably the publishers of the novelisation. Timrollpickering 07:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Regarding that pesky Season 23; Wikipedia has articles for all of the individual serials, but not under the titles we currently use on this list. They are titled with the nomenclature used in the The Trial of a Time Lord article, ie: The Mysterious Planet, Mindwarp, Terror of the Vervoids and The Ultimate Foe. I'm not sure whether The Ultimate Foe should be a description of the third story, the fourth story, or a disambiguation page... -- Logotu 16:23, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Can I suggest we decide first of all if the Trial should be presented as one story or four (I'm with the former as that is how it is billed on screen) and then decide on individual titles, if any are to be used. Timrollpickering 23:08, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd go with four separate stories, plus an entry for the Trial as a whole (that's how we've got it now), but making the "official" position clear in each story.--ALargeElk 10:07, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved The Ultimate Foe to Time Incorporated, and changed Foe to a disambiguation -- Logotu 21:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Footer box/sidebox

Would it be helpful to have something like this as a footer (using The Curse of Peladon as a random example):

Preceded by: Day of the Daleks

List of Doctor Who Serials

Followed by: The Sea Devils

Or even something more extensive - a sidebox with Doctor, season, companions, writer, alternate titles, etc. It might solve some of the issue we've discussed above. --ALargeElk 10:15, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

A more extensive sidebox would work better in my opinion. Take a look at the ones used for UK Prime Ministers, to pick a random example, e.g. Stanley Baldwin. Timrollpickering 10:19, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, here's a first attempt. --ALargeElk 12:01, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Marco Polo

Doctor	The First Doctor: William Hartnell
Companions	Susan Foreman Barbara Wright Ian Chesterton
Production code	1D (fourth serial, first season)
Transmission dates	22 February 1964 - 4 April 1964
Writer	John Lucarotti
Preceded by	The Edge of Destruction
Followed by	The Keys of Marinus

Looks good. Can I suggest including the directors (Warris Hussein and someone else for one episode IIRC). Also the code is just "D", not "1D" - the numbers don't come in until the fourth cycle (until then it's A,B etc..., then AA, BB... then AAA, BBB...). Timrollpickering 14:18, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Agree, looks good to me. Hope you don't mind but I've corrected your HTML (you used an open td tag instead of a close td tag on the last two rows, which added an unwanted third column). Maybe add the producer too? They do set the "tone" of an era. --Avaragado 22:05, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed about adding the producer - what about noting archive status - whether the story still exists or not etc. PMA 14:08, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and number of episodes in the serial, plus episode length - eg 4x25 minutes --Avaragado 14:46, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Marco Polo

Doctor	The First Doctor: William Hartnell
Companions	Susan Foreman Barbara Wright Ian Chesterton
Writer	John Lucarotti
Directors	Warris Hussein & John Crockett
Producer	Verity Lambert
Production code	D (season one, fourth serial)
Length	Seven episodes, each 25 minutes
Transmission dates	22 February 1964 - 4 April 1964
Preceded by	The Edge of Destruction
Followed by	The Keys of Marinus

OK, how about this. I've right-aligned it as it would be on the page. Is everybody happy with wikilinking all companions, writers, directors and producers? My feeling is that where these articles don't already exist, we should have them eventually.

Incidentally, does anyone feel that we should have an official Doctor Who wikiproject? There are sure to be other issues like this that need resolution. --ALargeElk 10:41, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. If we have to add any further to the box, I'd suggest the Script Editor (Story Editor for the first five seasons) as they had arguably more creative influence than the producer. Timrollpickering 11:06, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, to get a link to the Barbara Wright page you have to use Barbara Wright (Doctor Who)

It's been a while but there's now an example of the box at Mission to the Unknown. Take a look. Timrollpickering 18:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To be frank? It's ugly. Is there any information there that the link to the BBC website at the bottom wouldn't provide? -khaosworks 18:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On a more positive note, I like the Peerbox template - that should replace the tables we've been using for the synopses. I'm quite happy with for format I've been using, but of course that's bias for my own work... does anybody else have any thoughts on the cast box in Mission to the Unknown? -04:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's too wide: but that's a result of the first line, which is unusually long. We can always improve the design but the content looks good. -- Avaragado 09:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there a way to make the box a standard width no matter how long the lines in it are? -khaosworks 10:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can specify widths (as I see you've discovered in Mission to the Unknown!). But IMHO it's better to let the box size itself, and use a design that doesn't produce over-long lines. I might try a few designs later in the week, if I have time. -- Avaragado 22:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From vs. from?

Right now, there's only one entry written with a "from" in the title ("Spearhead From Space"), and that has it capitalized. Since there are two other entries to be created, "Creature from the Pit" and "Fury from the Deep", with the same word in them should they be capitalized too or shall we move "Spearhead From Space" to its non-capitalized version? My view is that we should do the latter, since "of the" is lower-case throughout the serial listing. A disambig page for "Spearhead" exists, but it should be the main page. --khaosworks 02:24, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The BBC page on this episode uses "from" rather than "From" so I guess that's official. -- Avaragado 08:49, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So how do we get someone to swap the current "Spearhead From Space" with "Spearhead from Space"? --khaosworks 14:54, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You just need to use the "move" link at the top of the From page. All the article history is preserved. You can't normally overwrite existing pages in this way, but as it's overwriting a redirect in this case this is OK. Actually you don't need to do this, as I've just done it. -- Avaragado 08:00, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"The BBC" is a very big sprawling organisation and one section's usage of a term does not make anything "official". Can I suggest we adopt the following order of priority in determining this:

1). The onscreen captions - some are not fully capitalised.

2). The standard rules of capitalisation - only the nouns get capitalised and so on.

Timrollpickering 11:18, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cast and crew lists

I've been trying to push a standardized format for the episode synopses (see Tomb of the Cybermen, among others). One of the things I've added to all the synopses is an external link to the cast and crew lists on the bbc.co.uk website. They've changed the .html files to .shtml files, so the links are all broken. Please change the links accordingly if you come across them. -khaosworks 09:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Episode titles

Do we really want to add this to the listing? So far, they've been included in the actual synopses. Also, the tables look really awkward. --khaosworks 00:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think they're important since some people might be searching for the episode name rather than the serial name. As to the formatting, I admit there could be a better way of doing it. I tried numbered lists, but that just took up way too much space. I tried tables so that the episode number and the episode title wouldn't become separated. "& nbsp;" might work better. DonQuixote 04:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find a good way of formatting the text, so I just added links to individual episode title pages. DonQuixote 09:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Production team

The writers after the serials are okay - the producers and story editors bits look awkward. In the individual synopses (at least those in the format I've been pushing) I've included links to cast and crew lists, and those should be sufficient. What I was thinking was a separate article showing the chronological tenure of producers, story editors, because they are more constant than writers. --khaosworks 05:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that probably would work better. That was my original idea, as well, but I thought that it might make more sense show the crew in context of the shows themselves, to give a better idea of their tenure (esp. during periods of high turnover, as in seasons five and six). But it makes the list a little cluttered, and probably doesn't help as much as I thought it might. Ah, well. – Seancdaug 12:04, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Doctorwhobox

I created Template:Doctorwhobox to replace the box at the bottom of the serial synopses. Have a look at the code for the box below to see how it works.

Doctor Who (Enemy Within)
Cast
Doctor Paul McGann
Production
Directed by	Geoffrey Sax
Written by	Matthew Jacobs
Script editor	None
Produced by	Peter V. Ware
Executive producer(s)	Philip David Segal Alex Beaton Jo Wright (for the BBC)
Production code	None
Running time	85 mins
First broadcast	May 14, 1996 (first global) May 27, 1996 (first UK)
Chronology
← Preceded by Survival Followed by → Rose

It's all very simple - basically, all you need to do is just fill in the fields, and put a <br> to separate the lines. We should still leave the External link to the Cast and Crew list as that carries a lot more detail. Guybrush suggested a Script Editor credit - where should it go in the hierarchy, though?

Comments are welcome. If this is acceptable to people, let's start redoing the serial pages with the new box over the next week or so. I'm kind of under deadline doom for my thesis, so I would appreciate help on this. -khaosworks 04:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Story numbers

Are these really needed? There is no actual consensus on the correct numbers for the series, not least because of Shada and The Trial of a Time Lord and the only time the BBC ever said anything on this provides a different answer to what we have here. Would it not be better to follow the usage of most programme guides and use the production codes which are pretty unambiguous? Timrollpickering 09:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The story numbers are on the BBC Region 1 releases, and with Remembrance of the Daleks being listed as No. 152, it seems that they're treating Trial as 4 serials instead of 1, and Shada is in there as well. The reason I put them up there is because of the lack of production codes on the new series - Series 1, Episode 1, etc. are going to be confusing. --khaosworks 15:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that having a number to the left of each episode title is helpful even if the numbers themselves are more or less meaningless. People like to have things numbered. We may wish to add a note about how the numbering is arbitrary. --Ravenswood 21:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added to List of Doctor Who serials. --khaosworks 21:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Series 2 (2006)

Has this been confirmed yet? Or is it still hypothetical? If the latter, should it really be included here? - Zaphod Beeblebrox 22:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's been confirmed. [1] --khaosworks 22:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! I shall look forward to it ; when was that decision taken? Was it purely on the back of last Saturday's viewing figures - or was it taken some time before that? Zaphod Beeblebrox 23:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently on the strength of the viewing figures. But now Eccleston has announced he's leaving. --khaosworks 23:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Had this been announced a day later, I would have put it down to an April Fool's Day joke - sad news however ; quite a shock to wake up to that... - Zaphod Beeblebrox 05:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this definitely true? Last I heard, it was a Sun front page. Might Eccleston be persuaded to stay on, or change his mind before the new season gets written? PaulHammond 10:49, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Bugger! Just read it on the bbc website. [2] Still, I guess Eccleston always was a bit busy to commit to Dr Who for 7 years like Tom Baker... PaulHammond 10:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

New Production vs continuity

As the new Doctor Who is considered a new production by the BBC, shouldn't epsiode numbering start at 1? It might be a good idea to split off the new Doctor Who into "List of (new) Doctor Who episodes" article, as they are not multi-episode serial stories, but single episode stories. 67.68.65.210 09:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not really, for a number of reasons.

1. The new series is a continuation of the old - it is not a reboot, but is clearly intended to follow on from the old continuity.
2. The numbering scheme is, ultimately, arbitrary, since originally all we ever had to go on was production codes. The scheme here follows the scheme started in reference works like the Discontunity Guide and the numbering in the R1 DVD releases and is not to be taken as an "official" number, but merely the place the story stands in the larger context of the programme.
3. In terms of "official" placing, we're already designating it as Series 1, Episode 1 in the production code section of the box, like the production company does.
4. Things change. For the majority of its life, Doctor Who was a series of serials - who's to say it won't go back to that? And to have two lists would be more confusing than one.

If you would like to participate in Wikipedia:Wikiproject Doctor Who, please consider creating an account, go to the project page and continue to discuss this there. --khaosworks 13:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

untitled episode "Bad Wolf"

While it is not yet on the official BBC website, in their episode guide, the website Outpost Gallifrey has confirmed that the title of the previously untitled episode 12 is "Bad Wolf" (which was my first guess, anyway). Their source for this information is Doctor Who Magazine, so I assume it to be official. I'll go ahead and make that minor change... :) -- travlr23

While the information seems reliable, I wonder if it might be worthwhile to specify that it's as-yet-uncomfirmed-by-the-BBC, just to cover our... well, y'know. OTOH, it's my personal inclination to trust OG over and above the BBC, so, whatever.... – Seancdaug 15:47, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think we can leave it as it's from DWM. The only confusion earlier (from an SFX article) was whether the earlier episode was World War III or World War Three, and that was minor. --khaosworks 15:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tom Baker opening season

Story arc? Or just stories that apparently take place one after another. Compare Yeti/Ice Warriors. GraemeLeggett 14:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not a story arc any more than The Faceless Ones and The Evil of the Daleks were story arcs, or even the early Hartnell serials. I believe it's already noted in the "Notes" section of the stories, or should be if it isn't that each directly follows on from the other from The Ark in Space to Terror of the Zygons. --khaosworks 15:24, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

New Series "Serials"

What I'm wondering is why, in the case of multi-part stories, each episode is listed as its own "serial" in the guide. Surely it is both fair and sensible to list "Aliens of London" and "World War Three" as a single story, especially given the way the early Hartnell era operated.

This is a slightly contentious issue. Originally, we had the stories arranged as you mention. However, it appears that the BBC are treating them as separate episodes (the episode guides on the BBC website on Outpost Gallifrey reflects this). In the Hartnell stories we had the benefit of having each serial grouped under its own production code, so saying that they were part of the same story was simple enough. Here, production codes don't help us because different production blocks are scattered over different episodes, so we have to fall back on the intent of the production office. There was a very brief discussion on the WikiProject Doctor Who page here. --khaosworks 20:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

If you're going by the BBC's organization, then why are you numbering the new-series episodes using the original-series scheme? Seems a bit odd, going halfway. One would think you'd either treat the new series entirely as its own unit, and number accordingly, or follow the old standard and group by serial. Although it is true that neither scheme seems entirely adequate, it seems wise to just pick one rather than hedge your bets and not get either quite right.

The lame answer is that that's how Outpost Gallifrey is doing it in its episode guide, really. --khaosworks 12:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, now OG has changed format just as arbitrarily.