Talk:Doctor Who series 9/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Speculation

Does the casting speculation regarding Clara really merit being in here? It is just speculation, and the article even states that "the BBC is yet to comment officially". Surely that's an admission that the speculation shouldn't be here? 31.49.158.59 (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We are not the ones doing the speculating, but we can report what other sources are speculating. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The cliffhanger

Isn't the cliffhanger supposed to be the second last episode since it's "the penultimate episode"? 220.255.1.149 (talk) 14:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Two partner. The penultimate quote is given. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Request Verification

"Filming and principal photography for the series began on 5 January 2015 in Cardiff,[5][6] with episodes 3 & 4 making up the first production block.[21][verification needed]"

Reference 21: "Doctor Who Magazine Gallifrey Guardian". Doctor Who Magazine (Panini) (482): Page 5. 8 January 2014. Retrieved 9 January 2014.

For the Christmas Countdown, a free exclusive preview of Issue 482 was released here - if this is the correct issue, I can see nothing on Page 5 about the first production block. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This is only a preview issue. In the published version, the interview with Coleman begins on page 12 and not straight away on page 2 as seen in the preview addition. It also has 82 pages in total so this preview version has simply been condensed (as they would not release an entire magazine online for free a month before it has been officially published). --86.134.246.132 (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

I don't really know what everybody is talking about here. Block One of production is confirmed to comprise of episode three and episode four. This is supported by a source to Doctor Who Magazine. The source that I have been trying to input is this: http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/toby-whithouse-two-parter-confirmed-for-series-9-71155.htm

People have been telling me that this source doesn't support the fact that Derek Ritchie will be producing the Block of production. You only need to read into the second paragraph where it says this however: "The episodes currently being filmed are written by Toby Whithouse (The Game, Being Human), produced by Derek Ritchie and directed by Daniel O’Hara (Silent Witness 2015, The Game, Being Human)".

Everything you need to know is here. Ritchie will be producing "the episodes currently being filmed". The episodes "currently being filmed" are episodes 3 and 4 as proved by the source from Doctor Who Magazine. What's not to understand?

Forgive me if I sound stupid but it's just frustrating when I have got something right and sourced and people delete it. 86.134.246.132 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If Doctor Who Magazine specifically states that these are indeed episodes 3 and 4, then cite it as a source. You only keep adding the BBC news page, which does not give that information. That is why it is removed. All you need to do is add <ref>Doctor Who Magazine, issue XX, page XX</ref>. Only then does it become verifiable (as in, others can check). However, note that you can not take two separate sources and draw a conclusion that is not explicitly stated in either source; that is WP:SYNTH. Hope this helps. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Episodes 3 and 4 have been confirmed by Doctor Who Magazine to be included in Block One. This is a completely separate source and has got its own reference which I have not added. This source hasn't been removed by yourself or anyone else so I'm assuming you believe it to be reliable (which it is because I happen to own a copy of the magazine myself). Block One is filmed first. Block One has been established to consist of episodes 3 and 4 (as stated in DWM). Block One is written by Toby Whithouse (as confirmed by the BBC yesterday), directed by Daniel O'Hara and produced by Derek Ritchie (as stated in the source that I have been trying to add). It clearly states "the episodes currently being filmed" before these three names. Therefore the episodes currently being filmed are episodes 3 and 4, written by Toby Whithouse, directed by Daniel O'Hara and produced by Derek Ritchie. Everything I have been trying to add into this production table is fully supported by two separate sources. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding something here but if these two sources are not linked at all (which they clearly are), then they should - by default - contradict each other. They are both official so they have to work together. Thanks in advance for managing to read this far into my extensive comment --86.134.246.132 (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly what often frustrates me about Wikipedia. You are completely correct, it's extremely unlikely that eps 3 and 4 are not written by Toby Whitehouse, this is a completely sane and correct conclusion to come to. The only thing stopping it being valid is that due to some silly Wikipedia protocol, drawing that kind of completely correct inference, when no source explicitly states "Toby Whitehouse has written episodes three and four", is not allowed - it's very technically "original research". I entirely agree with you, it's ridiculous and silly. C'est la vie. 86.156.11.86 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! We know Block One consists of episodes 3 and 4. We know Block One consists of two episodes written by Toby Whithouse. Therefore it's pretty obvious that Whithouse is writing episodes 3 and 4 if they are in Block One and he is writing Block One. I really hope the "moderators" here realise that and are just sticking by these silly guidelines despite their knowledge. If they don't then ... well.--86.134.246.132 (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment, but there's no rush to include this info in the article. When it's all sorted, we'll probably get all this by the time the DVDs are released. DonQuixote (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As a thought, if the trouble is, as it seems, reconciling the information in two official sources with WP:SYNTH, I would suggest the following:

It's actually been confirmed by more sources that the two parter being filmed at the moment is by Toby Whitehouse, produced by Daniel O Hara and produced by Derek Ritchie, than that Block 1 is eps 3 and 4. As there is more information to be gleaned from this (namely, the writer, producer and director of block 1) and bearing in mind the recent precedent of episode orders being moved round after filming (see Curse of the Black Spot/Night Terrors from a few years ago), I move that it's a better idea to insert the known writer, producer and director data, and to delete the 'episodes three and four' from the table, to reconcile it with the WP:SYNTH guidelines.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2015/filming-doctor-who-series-9 http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/toby-whithouse-two-parter-confirmed-for-series-9-71155.htm http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2015/01/first-official-clues-doctor-season-nine-emerge/ 78.148.96.167 (talk)

REJOICE! http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-01-22/everything-we-know-about-doctor-who-series-9-so-far 78.148.102.175 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Opening details

This article (http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-02-19/doctor-who-series-9-missy-announces-her-return-via-crunchy-video---watch) talks about the first two episodes being a two-parter (the Magician's Apprentice and the Witch's Familiar) and that they both feature the return of Michelle Gomez as Missy. It also mentions the return of Jemma Redgrave's Kate Lethbridge-Stewart, who appeared in series 7, 8, and the 50th anniversary special. Should it be added in?

Koscheithedeathlessofgallifrey (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done AlexTheWhovian (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Manual of Style - Relative time references

@AlexTheWhovian: I'd like you to please explain why you think WP:RELTIME does not apply here, but first I'll address your last edit summary...

It's a British show,

Wiki is written for a WP:WORLDWIDE audience

so we use British-hemisphere seasons,just like we use British English.

A false equivalence. Language style doesn't impact accuracy, use of relative time is ambiguous, e.g. is Australia getting this episode soon (they're in Autumn now)?

Just like the American "fall" season for TV series.

These are also wrong, and should be altered (which I've done on occasion), per the MoS.

No other editors have had an issue with this; such a change ought to go to the talk page first.)

Bold. Revert. Discuss. So here we are...

This is cut and dry per the MoS:

Because seasons occur at various times around the world, consider instead using months, quarters, or other more widely applicable terms such as mid-year unless the season itself is pertinent (spring blossoms, autumn harvest).

So I come back to, what are your compelling reasons for it not applying here, because the above don't justify it?

P.S. There's a certain irony that this article should raise questions about time. :) -Oosh (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The fourth quarter means October, November and December; there is no source to declare that the show will be beginning in one of these months. Since the show is a British show, it seems perfectly reasonable to use British seasons. Of course, Autumn doesn't apply for everywhere in the world, but if you're viewing a page about a British television show, it's just common sense that it'd use British time. Anyway, this is how it's been done for years and hasn't raised any issues. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 12:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Twelfth incarnation?

Capaldi does not play the twelfth incarnation, he plays the thirteenth. Twelfth is not only factually incorrect, it doesn't marry with several other articles on Wikipedia. When I change it it's reverted back. I've now changed it to 'current incarnation' instead - can we agree on that as a compromise?94.11.43.178 (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Thirteenth incarnation" is in-universe. Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective, and as such he's the twelfth leading actor of the series. DonQuixote (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What does the BBC officially call him? The Twelfth Doctor. Hence, that is what we use. The "War" Doctor is an incarnation of the character, but not a numbered one. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't raising an issue with him being referred to as the Twelfth Doctor. But there was a specific reference in the text to the 'twelfth incarnation' which is factually incorrect whichever way you look at it. Either way, the offending text appears to be gone now.94.11.43.178 (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Just as a note to be pernickety he is actually the fourteenth incarnation ("The Tenth Doctor" is one body but counts as two incarnations). He is called "The Twelfth Doctor" because its the twelfth body to use that name in his lifetime and that is what the BBC use, he certainly isn't the twelfth incarnation though, in-universe or out. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Episode titles

Where have the titles the rebal all and the retern of gus And the rani com from as these do not sund like episode titles and some thing that mint be put out to confuse fans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.186.39 (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly... These episode titles were unsourced, hence they were removed. Merely additions by fans who have no sources to back them up. Alex|The|Whovian 10:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter Capaldi the 12th Doctor is on facebook. www.facebookcom/petercapaldi

How do we add the news that the latest Doctor just created a facebook page. Ok, admittedly a year old but I only just found it. http://www.facebookcom/petercapaldi I don't think an acting Doctor has ever done this before. There were several references to the internet in season 8 such as moon photo's of the Doctor being posted to Tumblr. It could be building up to the announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.32.122 (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to add it. It appears like a fan-created account, if you ask me. Especially given that the page's description on the left is "Welcome to the Peter Capaldi Doctor Who Fan Club". Alex|The|Whovian 01:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

What else would he call his facebook fan club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.32.122 (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's run by fans. That's it. (Given that Capaldi isn't only known for Doctor Who, so he obviously wouldn't call it the "Doctor Who Fan Club" - there's your answer.) Unless you can provide a reliable source stating that it is, in fact, Peter Capaldi running the page, it doesn't get added to any article (given that it actually has no place on this particular article anyways). And please learn how to sign your posts with ~~~~. Alex|The|Whovian 02:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Number of episodes?

Aren't there 12 episodes commissioned for this series (9)? Official BBC Doctor Who Twitter page https://twitter.com/bbcdoctorwho shows photo of script cover for episode 10. 151.202.29.23 (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Taras

Yes, but as per Template:Infobox television season, the number of episodes doesn't get added to the infobox until after the series has concluded. And the photo shows nothing of value, other than it's Episode 10. That's it. Alex|The|Whovian 17:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the info box, but the list. Why are there only eight episodes listed then as none have aired yet? Shouldn't all (or none) that are in production be identified? 151.202.29.23 (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Taras

I'm assuming it's because no information about the other episodes have been released; when episode titles, writers and directors are confirmed, the list will be expanded. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite right, Rhain1999. An episode is added to the Episode List once there is a piece of information available that is the title, writer(s) or director(s), else it's just an empty row full of TBA's. Alex|The|Whovian 02:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The questionable Radio Times article

I think this is probably worth discussing here, as there is clearly a conflict over this. For those not aware of the sources these are the ones in question:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/entries/38990615-a32e-41b5-9765-137ecd727f86

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-04-03/could-doctor-who-series-nine-be-entirely-two-parters

One is the BBC's own announcement of the matter, the other is the Radio Times reporting on it. The conflict is coming about as a result of this (from the BBC)"the show continues filming with two period adventures" before continuing on to describe episodes 5 and 6 separately, and this (from the Radio Times) "The BBC tells RadioTimes.com that the three two-parters will run consecutively". You'd think this was fairly clear cut, but there's this rather concerning comment later on in the Radio Times' article "Of course we'll know by the time they air whether each adventure is officially a two-parter". It could be argued this comment refers to later stories rather than this one in particular but it is a bit worrying that the Radio Times are saying that the BBC have told them one thing but they don't know if it is official or not. This is a rather awkward situation, with two sources giving seemingly conflicting information. As one editor has pointed out already "adventure" doesn't necessarily tell us about the number of parts in the story (although why you'd call a two parter "two adventures" is a bit of a mystery).

I'm just putting this here so that everyone is aware of the matter and that the Radio Times is currently being sided with here although obviously if anyone can find anything clearer one way or the other it would be appreciated. Ruffice98 (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is everyone trying to dismiss Radio Times as a reliable source? It is a very reputable publication (once having been part of the BBC). But even when they are dead wrong, we still have an obligation to follow secondary sources, see also Wikipedia:Verifiablity. "Verifiablilty, not truth" is the motto. Now the sentence you cite ("Of course we'll know by the time they air") seem to apply to the episodes past the sixth one, and the BBC is very ambiguous in its own wording. So it seems the Radio Times still has got it right. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that both stories are written by different people is one step towards believing that they will be separate adventures. The juxtaposing names seem to clarify that the stories will tie together though, so it's more than likely going to be a two-parter of sorts, but on the same scale as "A Good Man Goes to War" / "Let's Kill Hitler". It's a question of assuming that Radio Times are correct, or leaving it be until we can get a proper statement. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 13:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for multi-part stories to be written by different writers. In fact, it is rathet the rule than the exception. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

In Doctor Who it is uncommon. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's happened before. The Daleks' Master Plan was written by Terry Nation (episodes 1-5 and 7) and Dennis Spooner (episodes 6 and 8-12). The Ultimate Foe was written by Robert Holmes (episode 13) and Pip and Jane Baker (episode 14). Even if it is uncommon, it is not unprecedented. — The Mighty Trought (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The Radio Times is certainly a reliable source. It becomes a bit more questionable when the BBC appear to have said something entirely different to what the Radio Times attributes to them. This is only to alert editors to the situation and that we should look for clarification if at all possible, no doubt the next DWM will provide some more details which should settle the matter. After all it wouldn't be the first time EITHER side has gotten something horribly wrong. Ruffice98 (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Two-Parter

When is it been confirmed that "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" are one story? It seems a bit strange that two different episodes written by completely different writers would make up one story. 109.151.162.1 (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

One source that has confirmed the two episodes as one story is Radio Times. I agree that it's a bit strange that the episodes have different writers, but I think it will be interesting to see the result of this. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 20:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a two-parter, but the episodes will contrast each other, hence the juxtaposing titles and the separate writers. It's a little like "A Good Man Goes to War" and "Let's Kill Hitler" but on a greater scale. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 01:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not complaining or anything; I think/hope it will be interesting. However, "A Good Man Goes to War" and "Let's Kill Hitler" were written by the same writer but had a couple of months break in between. If they were shown one week after the other, then they would probably be considered a two-part story. Yet this time, we have three different writers writing two different episodes that have similar titles and are being shown next to each other. It's probably likely that they are linked, but I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens next. (This is just my opinion by the way). 109.151.162.1 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that we don't state on the page that it is either a two-part story or two distinct stories until we have more information - in my view we do not yet have sufficient information on this. Cwmxii (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@81.111.9.102, please cite a reliable source that says what you want rather than removing sourced materials. See Talk:List of Doctor Who serials/Archive 11#AGMTGW/Hitler one story? for the proper protocol. DonQuixote (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Some things to have in mind here: "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" have the same director, at least one guest actor appearing in both episodes, and the titles are obviously similar in ways in which no other consecutive single part episodes are. Also take in mind it carries a similar kind of title scheme as "The Magician's Apprentice" and "The Witch's Familiar". If the differing writers is the only thing that is making it unclear whether or not it is a two part story, remember that several classic era stories had different writers on different episodes as well ("The Daleks Master Plan" and "The Trial of a Time Lord" for instance). "A Good Man Goes to War" and "Let's Kill Hitler" would not be considered a two part story as the two episodes have different directors, have no shared actors other than the three regulars, and aired with a two month gap between them. While it is not officially confirmed by the BBC that "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" is a two parter, neither have episodes 7, 8, 11 and 12, and everything points towards episode 5 and 6 being a two parter also.82.24.27.99 (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The source for the titles have episode 5 and 6 separated, and 7/8 and 11/12 have them paired together. That's a good enough indicator on whether episodes will be two-parters or not. Alex|The|Whovian 10:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Casting - CV Problems

So, i have brought this up on the talk page after talking to Edokter about it. I didnt see why "Caroline Boulton" shouldn't be on the casting list, and she was removed a few times, despite it being on her CV. This also includes a lot of other actors on the Casting list which have their sources cited as CV's.

Actors with a CV cited include: - Eisabeth Hopper - Darshan Anderson - Robin Soans - Todd Kramer - Gareth Berliner - Shin-Fei Chen - Alec James - Julie Hendy

We DO know some of these people are in it, such as Hopper as she was photographed. So, should we keep these in, or remove until actual BBC conformation?

--Badgerdog2 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that the latter part of this article is just a list of names not linked to wiki articles about them. The list also appears to me based on the date their participation became known rather than in any sort of episode order. Also too much repetition of ' ... is set to play ..' that to me is not definitive that these people are appearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.238.12 (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 Christmas Special

I've been reading the most recent issue of Doctor Who Magazine. It makes a note over the production blocks, including a note that the Christmas Special will be included in "the final production block". With the standard policy here of blindly following the DVDs regardless of how it is treated this is going to lead to complications.

Should we make a note that Block 9 is being used to film an episode not covered in this article? It's certainly noteworthy from a production standpoint and certainly isn't a unique case in Doctor Who's history (where other serials have been left to carry over for the next set of episodes). Ruffice98 (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Due to their being only a two week break between Episode 12 and the Christmas Special, i reckon that they're both a two parter (or a three parter including Episode 11), hence why they're so close together - the Christmas special being the final episode of the series. I think we should include it within THIS series.

--Badgerdog2 (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the policy here is to go by the DVD release, so whatever happens there will happen here. I don't think details have been confirmed yet though. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I would also say go back DVD release then. Whatever, and however order it is presented on there. I think I read technically the 2008-10 specials were classed as Series 4, but the DVD had them separate.

I say the BEST safe bet is to go by how and where the 2015 Christmas Special is. Maybe they would include it and release it after Christmas, just to include the special? We'll wait and see. Charlr6 (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No, what happened was The Next Doctor was technically in with Series 4, and the other four episodes were produced separately under the official name of "Series 4 Specials". However, here it is included in with those other specials on the grounds that it was released on the DVD alongside them. It is a similar case to this, it was the final production block of "Series 4", rather than the first of "Series 4 Specials". Ruffice98 (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Prequel

http://prntscr.com/7ye0gf

Can't find said CV online, so i'm not sure if i should add the writer and director online... I'll try and find it, but a little help could be appreciated if anyone can find it on here so it can act as the source. Badgerdog2 (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I found his Spotlight CV here; under the "Short Film" category, it lists the director as Ed Bazalgette, and his tweet seems to state that Moffat is the writer. Not sure if you can use this as a source, though. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 13:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes. I asked someone on twitter and they sent it over... I'm sure i can use that, as CV's have been used before. The Paisley reference shows Steven Moffat wrote it. So yeah.. Badgerdog2 (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Production Blocks

Someone keeps putting Episode 11 and 12 back in the same block when they're not.

Proof they're not? - Latest magazine issue states they're separate -- Episode 11, then Episode 9, then the final episode (Episode 12)

Source provided by editor is radio times article which is also clearly wrong, as it states "clapperboard painted to celebrate the 200th slate of block six of Doctor Who series nine – or episodes 11 and 12 as we like to call them." http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-07-28/doctor-who-series-9-end-is-in-sight-as-crew-celebrate-200th-slate-with-special-peter-capaldi-clapperboard

Rachel Talalay herself stated that this was the 200th clapperboard from Episode 11: https://twitter.com/rtalalay/status/624949002719653888 "untangle ep11"

There. Badgerdog2 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Insufficient information on episodes 9, 11 & 12

Unless I am mistaken, nowhere has it officially been stated that Gatiss is writing episode 9 - it's been said that he's writing an episode for this series but it's very possible that it will be bumped from this series. We also don't know for sure that 11 & 12 are a two-part story - the citation provided for this says it "could be" a two-part story. Cwmxii (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Episode 9

@Rhain1999: @Cwmxii:

1) Den of Geek source 2) Telegraph source 3) Blogtor Who source

In other news? There's the expected and very welcome news that Mark Gatiss (The Crimson Horror, Cold War, The Unquiet Dead) will be writing an episode for Doctor Who series 9. Picked up by Blogtor Who from an interview Gatiss gave to The Telegraph is this brief mention of his autumn episode:

“I’m in the midst of that right now – I broke off to come here today, in fact, but I’m hoping to finish the script tonight. It has been a tough nut to crack, but I’m delighted with how scary it is. I can’t say any more than that.”

To me, the above is more than enough source for Mark Gatiss as the writer for the ninth episode of this series. Alex|The|Whovian 06:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Even though it seems fairly obvious that Gatiss is writing the ninth episode, and I can almost guarantee that this will be the case, we can't jump to conclusions. We must stick to the confirmed facts; currently, all sources simply suggest that he is writing the episode, without official confirmation. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not entirely sure how "Mark Gatiss will be writing an episode for Doctor Who series 9" and "I'm in the midst of that right now" is suggestions rather than confirmations? There hasn't seemed to be any issues with having this content and these sources in the main body of the article, however. Alex|The|Whovian 06:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I should have clarified: there hasn't been any official confirmation that he is writing the ninth episode of the series; even though all sources seem to pretty much confirm it, we need an official confirmation before adding it to the article.

By the way, I appreciate you being mature about this and taking it to the talk page; I know a lot of other editors that wouldn't have acted quite so peacefully about things like this, so thanks for that. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 07:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

All good, I've learnt that doing things the opposite way comes to more harm than good. And fair enough point there, but if he's confirmed to be writing an episode, and the ninth episode is the only one with an unconfirmed writer, joining the two would be neither speculation nor original research in my mind? Alex|The|Whovian 07:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a good outlook on how to do things, so props to you. Also, I understand that sources have essentially confirmed Gatiss as the writer for the ninth episode, but joining the two like that appears to be breaching WP:SYNTH. We should expect an official confirmation sometime over the next few weeks, anyway. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 07:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There's actually only one source who clearly said he has written the episode 9 but this isn't officialy published. Even if a post of BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/entries/3c966a53-430b-4764-9b78-b44aef223a17 said he's one of the writter. The episode isn't filmed yet. --Jitrixis (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The most recent edition of Doctor Who Magazine confirms that he is the writer of Episode 9. It's been out for nearly two weeks now. 109.151.166.132 (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jitrixis: There is now an official source. Alex|The|Whovian 15:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Not yet confirmed online (I can't get the magazine where I am, sorry), but actually since the 5th august there's more informations and articles that lead to. Even Radio Time writer isn't very sure https://twitter.com/PatrickMulkern/status/628920339339341824 (retxeeted by Reece Shearsmith). Actually, what I get online is : Mark Gatiss is a Writter for this serie ; Reece Shearsmith is filming a special episode with Mark Gatiss ; Reece Shearsmith retweet Patrick Mulkern about the episode 9 (but didn't actually confirm it) ; and it's appear to be a series of 9s (inside No9 - Serie 9 - Episode 9). For me, it's like proving that, because of a triangle and a circle on a label of a pickle jar, this company is govern by the iluminati. But in fact, it becoming clearly less dubious (Didn't mean that I don't trust the paper, but I can't verify it). --Jitrixis (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then - how about this source? It's directly from the BBC itself. [1] Alex|The|Whovian 04:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Episode 12 Title?

So, Episode 12 is titled "X"

Interesting... http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/series-9-finale-filming-update-75100.htm Badgerdog2 (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The script title has been changed to an “X”. Obviously, Episode 12 is not titled "X". Alex|The|Whovian 23:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Scripts are not reliable as the episode title is usually changed anyway. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 11:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Who say's "X" cant be the title? It's likely the placeholder, but it could be the title... Who knows? Very moffat-y. E.g. Blink/Listen/X... But, it's likely the placeholder.Badgerdog2 (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"It's likely" is not good enough. Wikipedia deals with facts, not likelihood. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 19:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes i know. I just said it could be the title, it's not like as if i was going to put it back on. Badgerdog2 (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You need a source to back this up if it's to go in the article. Until then, it stays at it is, no matter if it could be the title or not. Alex|The|Whovian 23:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, okay. Fair enough. I understand. :) Badgerdog2 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And or & - Episode 8

Right, i've explained so many times but an IP user seems adamant to disagree. Fair enough.

1) DWM Magazine says "AND". DWM Magazine also sand "AND" for Episode 5. Therefore "AND" will be the main one that's used. 2) The only reason the IP user is changing it to "&" is because: "the magazine will have 'And' because it is more formal than '&'" - What? That's not a good enough claim to make, IMO. 3) Previous response was because DWTV source stated "co-written" -- So? Episode 5 is also "co-written" and that's "and", so i don't see the problem there?

They then also say that i can't know what will happen on screen - so how can you? How do you know it's "&". Another opinion here will be appreciated.

Badgerdog2 (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If the source uses "and" and not the ampersand (&), then we go with the source. I have reverted and asked the IP to bring the discussion here. If they continue their current activity, it's going to get them blocked. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

We usually go off how they are credited during the opening titles of the episode, so it doesn't matter either way as we'll get proper confirmation when the episode airs. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 19:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If we usually use the opening title credit style then we should probably use '&' per series 8. Looking through the revival series episode list I see no instances of 'and, only '&'. Alicia Florrick (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Depends what's on screen, but for now we should just assume good faith and stick to the source. When the episode airs, we'll see which one it uses, unless someone has another option. If other's have used "&" then it's likely that, but, that's a likelihood (as i've been told many times on here before - we should stick to facts not likelihood). Facts = DWM Magazine source, hence, that's our source for what we use. Badgerdog2 (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, we can't predict the future, so as Badgerdog2 said, we should stick to what we have been given until we get BBC confirmation. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 20:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Simply: For now, we stick to what the source gives. When the episode airs, we update it if necessary based on the episode. We don't base content of this article on other articles - just because Series 8 uses ampersands, doesn't necessarily apply here. Alex|The|Whovian 08:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Episode 9 Filming - "Special Episode" ??

"...as he takes-up a guest role in a special episode of Doctor Who..."

"I can say with authority will be unlike any previous episode of Doctor Who"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/entries/75f0e28d-b74a-43f3-a0c2-fa8aded8dac8

Why is this considered as a "special" episode? Also listed as "scary" and "unlike any previous episode"

Strange... Just "hype" or something? Hyperbole?

I seem to recall Human Nature being called something similar. So I doubt it's anything gimmicky like a musical or a live ep, although those are certainly possibilities at some point. It'll probably just be a very unusual sort of story.

Badgerdog2 (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

They seem to be saying this about every episode recently, how it's "scary" and "unlike any previous episode". It's probably just to build up hype. My guess is that it'll just be an ordinary story which is different to other stories (which is the case for the majority of Doctor Who episodes these days). 109.151.166.132 (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I personally believe it to be hype. Though (this isn't to be added to the article given that it's entirely speculation), Tennant and RT Davies were spotted in Cardiff, and there's a rumour about that it'll be a visit back to Pompeii for an explanation of Twelve's face. Again, entirely speculation, though it might be the reason behind the "special" episode. Alex|The|Whovian 01:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Coming back to this, it has been confirmed that Episode 9 is a found-footage episode, hence the quote of "unlike any previous episode" and a "special" episode. So nothing overly important. Alex|The|Whovian 08:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Plot Synopsis

Do we add plot synopsis' to individual episodes? Or do we leave them? They have released a synopsis for Episode 1 and 2 by the way. Badgerdog2 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't add plot synopsis' to articles, as this would violate WP:COPYVIO. Instead, we wait until the episodes have aired, and we summarize the episode based only upon our own watching experience, not referencing any other secondary content. Alex|The|Whovian 17:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah okay. Thank you - i was just confused with people constantly adding it in. Thanks for clarification.Badgerdog2 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

DVD cover and colour

Shouldn't we wait on this until the COMPLETE series boxset comes out? Every other series has had their DVD cover and colour identification made up from the complete series boxset and not the vanillas/half series sets. --TARDIS2468 (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no policy stating we have to wait for the whole boxset - this is just as valid. Who's to say that they're even doing a full boxset? Given that they seem to (strangely) be doing one for the first part, and presumably one for the second part. Alex|The|Whovian 11:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Putting a colour in is a bit of a conceit rather an imperative. And the choice could be arbitrary. If you only watch the series on TV (and millions will compared to the thousands who buy the DVD) then that the colour of the infobox and serial table matches the DVD release is of no importance in this article. Though variety of colour does break up the List of Doctor Who... article. In those terms it matters not what colour is used (provided it meets other Wikipedia policy/guidelines). The release is close, so an image of DVD cover is probably as likely to be that of the final item, and as valid a reference point for the colour picked here as is possible. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Colour is always used to match the DVD covers or marketing material, and adjusted to contrast if necessary, and if that is not available, then a random colour is picked, as long as it matches contrasting guidelines. (Source: Every television season article with DVD cover art). Alex|The|Whovian 14:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Pray tell... what DVD color are we talking about? Looking at all the season, I cannot find a distict color on the box. Also, the black is way too dark. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Edokter: Too dark for/against what? Alex|The|Whovian 14:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The link colors are now invisible. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The references? Then we move them from the header to the table. Almost as easy as editing supplementary content instead of tagging it with clarify templates... Alex|The|Whovian 14:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And then you end up compromising, for the want of a word, one otherwise consistent style choice by insisting on another. Or inserting complex styling code to create a workaround. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is Last Christmas part of this series

Since the start of Series 9 is described as September 2015? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the location of every Christmas special relative to each series. Alex|The|Whovian 11:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this is a good point. We've been doing it this way since the second DVD set put the Christmas special with the Series 2 episodes. Now that we split special episodes into their own article, we might consider doing the same with the Christmas specials. DonQuixote (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We've split special episodes into their own articles when the fact that they're special episodes are noteworthy (2008-10 specials for the lack of a series in 2009, and 2013 specials for the 50th Anniversary). There's 11 tables from Series 1 onward on the List of Serials page at the moment - removing the Christmas Specials from each and adding them all to their own singular-row tables would create 17. Not necessary. Alex|The|Whovian 15:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

But if sources do not put it in Series 9, then it should go as an addendum to series 8 rather than at the start of 9.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And your sources that it's officially put in Series 8? Alex|The|Whovian 23:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That's the point isn't it. If it's not in Series 9 or series 8, then where is it? The lede to this article says filming of Series 9 started in January (after Last Christmas had been shown) so it can't be in 9. Perhaps this is a more general question and should be flagged up at the Project page? GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And the lead of Series 8 says filming wrapped in August 2014 (before Last Christmas has been filmed), so it can't be in 8. And a new table for one episode is unnecessary. So it needs to belong somewhere, which is why every Christmas Special since 2005 has been placed in the next series' table, without any issues. Take it up at the Project page if you wish. Alex|The|Whovian 06:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Series 9 is probably the best place for "Last Christmas", due to the fact that it's (likely) to be included on the Complete Ninth Series DVD/Blu-ray box set later in the year (the same way that "A Christmas Invasion" was on the Series 2 DVD, "The Runaway Bride" on Series 3, and so on). Besides this, I can't see any obvious way to organise them. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

If it must stay, then either "set to premiere on 19 September 2015" needs to be changed, or the special needs to be in a separate table with a comment that it's not a part of the series. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree; this is nonsense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I boldly created this page: List of Doctor Who Christmas Specials. Take a look and comment. DonQuixote (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine, just one little note, "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" has production code "X11" (it's the final episode to have such a code). Ruffice98 (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet another list? No... -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Christmas specials do not need their own page. They must have their own section on the main serials page as they are proper episodes. That way we can also include all specials in that list such as Planet of the Dead, The Waters of Mars etc. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Another list page serves no purpose, and is just a great big colour fest. Especially since it includes both episodes of The End of Time, though only one was a Christmas Special. Alex|The|Whovian 04:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Well given the official start date of series 9 and the statement "The series will open with a two-parter..." it's clear that Last Christmas can't remain where it is on this article. So on the main list I've moved it out of series 9. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that this discussion is under way, please do not take such action until consensus is reached. Alex|The|Whovian 02:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be easier to put on the List of Doctor Who serials page under a "Specials" header at the bottom?

Story	Episode	Title	Directed by	Written by	Original air date	Prod. code	UK viewers (millions)	AI
167	–	"The Christmas Invasion"	James Hawes	Russell T Davies	25 December 2005 (2005-12-25)	2X	9.84	84
178	–	"The Runaway Bride"	Euros Lyn	Russell T Davies	25 December 2006 (2006-12-25)	3X	9.35	84
188	–	"Voyage of the Damned"	James Strong	Russell T Davies	25 December 2007 (2007-12-25)	4X	13.31	86
199	–	"The Next Doctor"	Andy Goddard	Russell T Davies	25 December 2008 (2008-12-25)	4.14	13.10	86
200	–	"Planet of the Dead"	James Strong	Russell T Davies & Gareth Roberts	11 April 2009 (2009-04-11)	4.15	9.75	88
201	–	"The Waters of Mars"	Graeme Harper	Russell T Davies & Phil Ford	15 November 2009 (2009-11-15)	4.16	10.32	88
202	–	The End of Time	Euros Lyn	Russell T Davies	25 December 2009 (2009-12-25) 1 January 2010 (2010-01-01)	4.17 4.18	12.04 12.27	87 89
213	–	"A Christmas Carol"	Toby Haynes	Steven Moffat	25 December 2010 (2010-12-25)	2.X	12.11	83
225	–	"The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe"	Farren Blackburn	Steven Moffat	25 December 2011 (2011-12-25)	X11	10.77	84
231	–	"The Snowmen"	Saul Metzstein	Steven Moffat	25 December 2012	–	9.87	87
240	–	"The Day of the Doctor"	Nick Hurran	Steven Moffat	23 November 2013 (2013-11-23)	–	12.80	88
241	–	"The Time of the Doctor"	Jamie Payne	Steven Moffat	25 December 2013 (2013-12-25)	–	11.14	83
253	–	"Last Christmas"	Paul Wilmshurst	Steven Moffat	25 December 2014 (2014-12-25)	–	8.28	82

Or this, if we are going to keep the 2008–10 and 2013 specials as they are:

Story	Episode	Title	Directed by	Written by	Original air date	Prod. code	UK viewers (millions)	AI
167	–	"The Christmas Invasion"	James Hawes	Russell T Davies	25 December 2005 (2005-12-25)	2X	9.84	84
178	–	"The Runaway Bride"	Euros Lyn	Russell T Davies	25 December 2006 (2006-12-25)	3X	9.35	84
188	–	"Voyage of the Damned"	James Strong	Russell T Davies	25 December 2007 (2007-12-25)	4X	13.31	86
213	–	"A Christmas Carol"	Toby Haynes	Steven Moffat	25 December 2010 (2010-12-25)	2.X	12.11	83
225	–	"The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe"	Farren Blackburn	Steven Moffat	25 December 2011 (2011-12-25)	X11	10.77	84
231	–	"The Snowmen"	Saul Metzstein	Steven Moffat	25 December 2012	–	9.87	87
253	–	"Last Christmas"	Paul Wilmshurst	Steven Moffat	25 December 2014 (2014-12-25)	–	8.28	82

— RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 00:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see the need for yet another List of Episodes page. Alex|The|Whovian 02:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to leave my two cents here, since my opinion on the matter has changed since I last commented. I think all series articles prior to Capaldi's introduction should be left as they are. However, I think that "Last Christmas" should be added to the Series 8 article (under a "Specials" subsection, similar to series 4); it was broadcast less than two months after the finale, and I just feel as though it fits better this way. I definitely don't think a separate article/section for all Christmas specials would work, though; I'm against List of Doctor Who Christmas specials. Just my opinion. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I find that another table for the Christmas episodes doesn't need to be made as this will just make the page even more extensive than it already is. I also think that Last Christmas should stay on the series 9 page, as this carries on the continuity from each of the other seres pages. We should wait until the boxset of series 9 is released before moving the episode anywhere, if the episode is include on the boxset then it should obviously stay on this page; if for some unknown reason that it is not include then I would suggest moving it to series 8 under a Christmas Special heading. The Doctor ^{ALL 13!!} 06:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it would be better if we wait for the boxset. Also in reply to AlexTheWhovian, I wasn't suggesting that we add that table to a new page, rather keep it on the main serials page. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 11:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Another issue...

Revisiting this... I happened to realize something that opposes my views from before of keeping it the way it is: At List of Doctor Who serials, you'll notice that (for example) Series 2's header is Series 2 (2006), but the table includes dates from 2005 (the Christmas special). This reoccurs with Series 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9. Alex|The|Whovian 02:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I've never really considered them part of Series 2, the only reason they should be combined is because they had the same production, as well as the DVD releases. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 06:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The Witch's Familiar - Jenna?

Radio Times does not list her on the cast list, but does list her for The Magician's Apprentice. Radio Times is much more reliable than IMDB (which has Jenna). Jenna does not seem to be in The Witch's Familiar - we should stick by the most reliable source for now, and, when times comes, make any adjustments if needed. Badgerdog2 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Badgerdog2: Exactly. There's no source for her appearance in The Witch's Familiar, which outweights there being no source for her lack of appearance in the episode. Alex|The|Whovian 01:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Jenna Leaving

Even though it's on the BBC site that article is very careful to say 'it is thought that...' and so on. It also explicitly says in the middle, after the bit about ITV " not making any casting announcements":

"The BBC has also declined to confirm Jenna's departure from Doctor Who"

So it's not yet an official announcement. Also citing "The Mirror" with their reports.. :/

It's highly likely she's is leaving (i'll be shocked if she wasn't) - but lets look at the facts, no?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34266847 Badgerdog2 (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

BBC News is just one department within the BBC and have proven time and time again that they are fairly useless at checking their facts (internally at least, not wanting to question the whole of their output). They made a mess a while back reporting on a story about a Doctor Who film supposedly being made, which was never going to happen and was simply a director talking a load of nonsense bu because the "BBC" reported on it, it suddenly became "official". The facts have now come out and the article was talking nonsense, she'll already be gone before the Christmas Special goes out seemingly. Ruffice98 (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Audience Appreciation

Could anyone tell me how long it takes for the AI figures to usually be released after an episode is broadcast? 86.173.91.133 (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Typically the day after the episode's broadcast. Alex|The|Whovian 12:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Prequel or Prologue?

Now at a picky level, a prologue is not a prequel but getting beyond that the BBC are referring to it as Prologue "Doctor Who Series 9 starts here, with this prologue to episode 1." So shouldn't it go before, or at the start of the episode list? At least from a screening chronological perspective GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett: The main table is for televised episodes. The latter table is for web-released content, such as prologues and prequels. It is fine where it is. Alex|The|Whovian 12:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Alex the Whovian just reverted the description of "The Doctor's Meditation" to call it a "prequel". Meditation was released 15 Sept. Apprentice on 22 September. prequel - Oxford Dictionary "noun. A story or movie containing events that precede those of an existing work." If it had been broadcast AFTER the episode, it would be a prequel. Before, it can be a prologue/prelude/introduction. See also WP's definition prequel: "A prequel is a work that forms part of a back-story to the preceding work" And I know a lot of people abuse the term. Dictionaries do not. 202.81.248.252 (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

And a specific reference to "Meditation": The Telegraph " The Doctor's Meditation: series nine prologue number two". Thus I will cite this and restore the description. 202.81.248.252 (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed how you deliberately missed the line of "The BBC has released a second prequel to episode one". Care to comment? Alex|The|Whovian 12:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"Deliberately"? Well, forget about "assume good faith" then. I read the headline, which was probably written by the subeditor who takes more care with language than the reporter. I give up. Obviously no one cares what the dictionary defines a word as, let's just use whatever sounds cool. 202.81.248.252 (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

PS. In the same article, the reporter says "In a sneak peak". So sadly she's not a great exemplar of the Queen's English. I really should have read beyond the headline. Meanwhile, I notice you have "deliberately missed" (or perhaps never bothered to read) my citations of the Oxford Dictionary and the battle-tested Wikipedia definition. But you say in your edit comment "most definitely a prequel" without bothering to cite anything, let alone a WP:RS. 14:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.248.252 (talk)

AGF, they may not have read that far. But for Prologue, The Guardian doesn't call it a prequel and it's just called prologue here on BBC America. The Radio Times uses prequel once but mostly uses prologue including of the DM This is not the only prologue for The Magician’s Apprentice. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

DVD Cover

Now the DVD cover art for the UK release of Series 9 Part 1 has been confirmed[2], the colours should be changed to match that rather than the US cover. 2.223.188.185 (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i agree with this - they should be changed to match UK DVD Cover. Badgerdog2 (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

For real? They keep changing it... You're right. Alex|The|Whovian 23:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't yellow be better to match the text? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 10:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ratings consolidated data

This year BARB (the source used for consolidated UK Ratings) are releasing 28 day consolidated ratings on top of the 7 day data currently used. My question is whether we should now use the 28 day data which from December 2014 on is the final and most accurate data. This would involve the ratings for "Last Christmas" going to 8.55 million. Kobsters1 (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Episodes 5 & 6

The new issue of SFX has previews for the series which confirm these two episodes are a two-parter. 86.25.135.140 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Elaborate? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think they're referring to this. Alicia Florrick (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This only groups them together, it doesn't confirm it's a two-parter. What has been confirmed, though, it's 4 two-parters and 4 singular episodes this series, meaning Episodes 5 and 6 are singular. Alex|The|Whovian 02:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"From now on we're going to confuse you about what constitutes a two-parter" - Steven Moffat, Doctor Who Magazine 490 (in reference to episode 5 and 6). He's properly f****d up these Wikipedia lists now ... In all seriousness though, I think the only similarities are the fact that both episodes have Maisie Williams in. They are both written by different writers and are set in different time periods - but both co-star Williams. So the decision of whether or not episodes 5 and 6 are counted as a two-parter is presumably up to the fans. 109.151.162.167 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a two-parter, the two episodes just share links with one another, like "A Good Man Goes to War" and "Let's Kill Hitler". — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 17:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

We have no idea what the situation is, even at one point in development those stories were indeed a two parter. He's said it will be clear if it is a two parter or not when the episodes go out. If you really want to keep things simple I'd advise just not listing story numbers as well. The only stories confirmed as two parters are episodes 1/2, 3/4 and 7/8, also only 9 and 10 are confirmed as single parters. That leaves question marks over both episodes 5 and 6, and also over 11 and 12. Is it possible to just leave the story numbering blank for now until broadcast when the situation will be made apparent? Ruffice98 (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I highly disagree with leaving the numbering blank. It's been confirmed that there's 4 two-parters and 4 singular episodes - that is, 1/2 3/4, 7/8, and 11/12. The rest goes from there. Alex|The|Whovian 23:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Alex, as it has been confirmed there are 4 two parters. Also, the reason they're grouped together is mainly because they carry on specific element - Maisie Williams. Which is WHY they're grouped together, despite not being two parters. Badgerdog2 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Where has this been confirmed? We've just given you a source saying that they are refusing to provide anyone with official information on the structure of these two episodes until broadcast has happened. That's quite the opposite of confirmation, it's a flat out denial. Episodes 11 and 12 have not been commented on, they have the same writer and director, but that doesn't mean it is a two parter (the only thing close to it is comments that episode 12 is the finale, but that doesn't confirm its a single parter, just suggestive which isn't enough). As of the moment we have official confirmation of two single parters and three two parters, please provide a reliable source to confirm the status of the other episodes because an official alternative does not exist. Ruffice98 (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

While I search again for the source stating the the four two-parters and four singular, here's something: "state that this solo outing will be part 1 of the two-part finale." Alex|The|Whovian 08:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia tradition of having to be pedantic, I would note that their source which as you say "state that this solo outing will be part 1 of the two-part finale." actually only says its episode eleven. I know it has been confirmed there will be a cliffhanger at the end of the episode, but that doesn't mean its a multi-part link up. Just a note to be cautious, go as you wish but don't mistake added speculation for what the sources are actually saying. Ruffice98 (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of two-part finale you're not getting? Alex|The|Whovian 02:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You've provided a source that says another site is talking about the two part series finale, but then going to this other site there is absolutely no reference to a two part finale at all. It doesn't rule it out, but that certainly doesn't confirm it either. Your source is unreliable, that doesn't mean you are wrong, just that we can't trust that particular source. That also doesn't mean another can't be found, but don't source it back to that particular article because the source isn't completely foolproof. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Both this source (a 'spoiler-free' review) and this RadioTimes listing seem to confirm this is a two-parter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.236.47 (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"Four episodes being standalones"

I've asked for a reliable source supporting the article's claim that the series is composed of eight two-parters and four stand-alone episodes, and been told that is "long confirmed" and supported by the story numbers in the chart. @AlexTheWhovian:, can you please provide a reliable source for the story numbers themselves? According to List of Doctor Who serials that is not an official designation. Several sources indicate that episodes 5 & 6 have the same guest stars and monsters, and at least one (of questionable reliability) explicitly calls them a two-part story. As some unsolicited advice, the onus is on someone supporting challenged material to provide a citation for what is claimed. The statement may well be correct, but if we can't reliable source it, it shouldn't be included. If challenged material can be cited to a reliable source, it should be. It doesn't help the integrity of the project to be so resistant to requests for a citation.--Trystan (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. How's this? Straight from the BBC itself - you can get no more superior source for a BBC-related series - and grouping the episodes accordingly. 1/2, 3/4, 5, 6, 7/8, 9, 10, 11/12. Alex|The|Whovian 20:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That will do very nicely, thanks. :) I'll add it to the article.--Trystan (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Series 9 Part 1 boxset lists "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" as a two parter. http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/series-9-part-1-dvd-blu-ray-details-76025.htm 37.203.157.173 (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that, also at the BBC Shop it states "Part 1 contains the first three two-part stories plus 3 exclusive mini-documentaries on how each two-parter was created." It should be listed as a two-parter, as the article 'Series 9: Everything You Need to Know' is the only source that lists them separately, and while you can argue that it is from the BBC, the article was first posted in July, also the BBC Shop and the DVD are from BBC as well and are both more recent. 2.223.188.185 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Simply because one source is newer than another, doesn't automatically make the latter source obsolete. They have been confirmed over and over again to be merely "connected" episodes, and not a two-parter, given that (contrary to what you state and cannot back up) it is not the only source. Alex|The|Whovian 15:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

They have also been confirmed multiple times to be a two parter. It is possible that the two episodes were planned to be standalone episodes but later changed, similar to how "A Good Man Goes to War" and "Let's Kill Hitler" were originally planned to be a two parter but that was changed (backed up by the fact that the article you link to is several months old and they seem to have changed a to a two parter now).37.203.144.83 (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a source from within the past twenty-four hours: "Curiously, those snyopses suggest that the stories may not be as closely linked as we first thought. It remains to be seen whether or not this is a traditional two-parter". Given that there is no confirmation that the two episodes are a two-parter, that's how it remains. Alex|The|Whovian 12:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You're argument is flawed in the fact that you have used a source from Den of Geek to disprove a source from the BBC. Also it says 'traditional two-parter' implying that they are in fact a two-parter but might not be a traditional one. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

So, you want a BBC source to disprove a BBC source, but when I gave you a BBC source, you complain? The sense. A traditional two-parter is obvious, the two episodes share the same story number. If it's not a traditional two-parter, it's not a two-parter - i.e., different stories. Alex|The|Whovian 18:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The BBC source you gave is much older than the one I gave. Things change, meaning that a recent source from the same website is more reliable than a older one. Also, it does not matter whether a two-parter is traditional or not, if it is officially classified as a two-parter then it is a two-parter. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

And until you can prove otherwise, that "older" source is just as reliable. And if it's not classified as such, which at the current time it hasn't, then it's not. Alex|The|Whovian 18:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The proof that it is not as reliable is that it is older, the classification of the episodes may have changed since the article was posted. Also, the BBC Shop source was posted after the BBC stopped updating the article. As well as this, the vast majority of sources classify the episodes as a two-parter, including the BBC. Classifying them as standalone episodes is going with very few sources and against the majority, including the BBC. An older source is less reliable if the information in it contradicts the information in the newer source, especially if both sources come from the same website. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, no matter how old a source is, it remains reliable until another source directly states otherwise. Directly. And given that the article I supplied is and has been updated as new news is released - doubtful. Where is this "vast majority of sources" you claim? I'm seeing no list. And according to you, they must only be from the BBC, so that's what I'm expecting from you. If you cannot provide, then the episodes can stay as they are. Alex|The|Whovian 18:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The article you supplied has not been updated since before "The Magician's Apprentice". I have provided two sources ([3], [4]) that disprove the one you provided, both of which explicitly refer to it as a two-parter. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither directly support your claims, which therefore still stands false. (And you provided one source, it's the same content.) Alex|The|Whovian 19:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

How does explicitly stating that the episodes are a two-parter not support my claim that the episodes are a two-parter? 5.65.166.226 (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Because it doesn't explicitly state it. Alex|The|Whovian 20:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It states "Part 1 contains the first three two-part stories plus 3 exclusive mini-documentaries on how each two-parter was created", how is that not explicitly stating that episodes are a two-parter? Also, the back cover shows "The Girl Who Died" / "The Woman Who Lived". 5.65.166.226 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You claim that they can't be a two parter because a few months ago the BBC said it wasn't - but a more recent source, in the form of the official BBC DVD boxset, claims that it is a two parter. DVD boxsets are used as a reliable source to claim that "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe", for example, belongs on the Series 7 page as it was released on the Series 7 boxset. So how can you claim DVD boxsets to be sometimes reliable and sometimes not? 37.203.144.83 (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Circles and circles... Since it's not being changed during this discussion anyways, it stays as it is as per consensus between editors. It's also funny how you two IP editors started editing Wikipedia the same day and this page around the same time - I detect sockpuppets. Alex|The|Whovian 20:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah so now you're accusing me of being a sock puppet with no evidence whatsoever. 37.203.144.83 (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Evidence is common sense. Same day, same times. Coincidence? Besides, this isn't the place for that. Alex|The|Whovian 20:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about it, the episodes are written by different writers, have different guest casts (other than Maisie Williams), have different enemies/monsters, are stated of the Doctor Who page to be standalone episodes and have been confirmed not to be a two-parter on multiple occasions, they should be listed as standalone episodes. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This has come up before and the solution is exactly the same as last time. Steven Moffat has confirmed episodes 1/2, 3/4 and 7/8 as two parters and is keeping everything else ambiguous until broadcast for story reasons. It will be made clear what they are once the episodes have actually gone out, no doubt with their "To be continued" message at the end if it is indeed a two parter. Be patient and the answer will come, we aren't in a rush. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

In an advance review of "The Girl Who Died", it is stated that there is a "To Be Continued..."[5] and another advance review states that there is a cliffhanger[6], which confirms that the episodes are a two-parter. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Under The Lake - Timings

http://www.watershed.co.uk/whatson/6847/doctor-who-preview-qa/

Here it is listed as 60 minutes, but Radio Time lists it as 45 minutes? I'm confused - is it 60 minutes or 45 minutes?

Badgerdog2 (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The site that you linked appears to be a live screening of the episode, followed by a Q&A session with some of the cast and crew, whereas the Radio Times listing is for the television screening only. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 15:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/under-the-lake-official-synopsis-75996.htm Definitely 45 minutes then! It's probably the Q&A session. Badgerdog2 (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hour long shows are usually 42-45 minutes in length with the rest of the time filled by commercials. Crash Underride 18:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Filming

Does anyone know of a reliable source that states the final filming dates for Series 9 and/or the 2015 Christmas Special? Alex|The|Whovian 03:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Before the Flood AI

If 'Before the Flood's' AI does not agree with the source at the header of the table, surely there should be individual sources for each of the AIs, as having a source at the header of the column suggests all of the AIs are sourced with this source.Theoosmond (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Having a header source does suggest that all AIs are sourced with that single one, except for the possible case when they're source individually. That is, if there's no source in the cell, use the header cell, else if there is a source in the cell, use that one. Alex|The|Whovian 16:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)