Talk:Doctor Who series 9/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Boxset Cover Art

The cover art is incorrect[1], it needs to be changed. 90.196.193.86 (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done nyuszika7h (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, Nyuszika7H, you should have over-written/uploaded over File:Doctor Who Series 9.png, instead of a new file. Secondly, the cover art is barely different, it's just got an intrusive label over it, covering the actual cover art. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: You cannot upload JPEG image on top of a PNG one. As I explained in my edit summary, it should have been JPEG anyway, so I didn't convert it to PNG. Also, this matches the cover arts for the other series. (I'm not necessarily saying it's a good thing.) nyuszika7h (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Convert the file, then? It really doesn't matter what the file extension is, so we shouldn't be cluttering the site up. And I don't see how, minus a logo or two that make no different to the article. But that's just my opinion. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the hexagon covers the actual artwork, and also the hexagon advertises the DVD set, which shouldn't be the case, the picture should not advertise buying the set. Theoosmond (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian and Theoosmond: I don't think it really covers anything important or advertises the boxset any more than the other series pictures just because of the mention of special features. I'm not opposed to using the less cluttered version, but there are other problems. "It really doesn't matter what the file extension is" – since when do policies not matter? WP:IUP#FORMAT says these should be in JPEG format. You can't upload a JPEG version over a PNG version or vice-versa, it needs to be a separate upload. And IUP also recommends against simply converting JPEG to PNG since that will just needlessly increase the file size. We're not really cluttering the site as one of them would get deleted eventually.

Anyway, feel free to restore the earlier version and move the orphan tag to the new one if you want. I don't really care at this point, I regret even getting involved. If someone else cares enough about the file format then maybe it will be fixed eventually (same for series 6), or not, whatever. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"The Girl Who Died" / "The Woman Who Lived" and "Face the Raven" / "Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent"

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

---

Multiple sources confirm "The Girl Who Died" / "The Woman Who Lived" and "Face the Raven" / "Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent" are multi-parters[2][3][4], no sources refer to them as standalones, and therefore listing them as such is original research. DWM is not an acceptable source for these matters, they are listed separately in the magazine for the convenience of readers and nothing else, the mentioning of Moffat is just saying that he allowed them to do this, the evidence for them being standalones is just parts of a source that have been misinterpreted and taken completely out of context. Also, they are directly linked, they cannot be called standalones, other than in a series with a continuous story (like Series 3 & 4 of Torchwood), standalones are completely independent and self-contained other than potentially a reference to the series arc, none of those episodes fit that description. Think of it like this, if you took an episode out, the other(s) wouldn't make any sense, how can an episode that requires another episode to make any sort of sense possibly be considered a standalone. The episodes are not standalones by any description. Fan4Life (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Are we honestly reviving this again? Please tell me you've read the entire discussion that takes up about 90% of the second archive for this talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

One related point. In the article, it actually makes a statement about these being a three parter Doctor_Who_(series_9)#Writing_and_development - so we probably shouldn't have it both ways or clarify it better. However to address the raised point, the Woman Who Lived could have been shown a season later and still have made sense (think The Lodger and Closing Time) - so it's not as directly linked as you suggest. With FTR/HS/HB I can definitely understand are different enough to be considered separately - but continuing enough to be considered together - so I'm not going to argue either way there. However I support the use of DWM as the official source as it has been considered reliable for the entire show listings to date. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I did read that disussion, thoroughly. I found evidence lacking. @Dresken: Not really, if "The Woman Who Lived" had aired a series later, it would not have made sense, it was directly linked to the previous episode, the story would not have been complete. As I said, they are listed separately in the magazine for the convenience of readers and nothing else, the mentioning of Moffat is just saying that he allowed them to do this, the evidence for them being standalones is just parts of a source that have been misinterpreted and taken completely out of context. They are not different enough to be considered standalones, that isn't how it works, they are directly linked and various sources[5] confirm they are standalones. DWM does not override the majority of sources, especially when it does not actually back-up the claims, only official confirmation (which is what Radio Times and other sites would be going by as they can't use their opinion or present anything unconfirmed as fact) can override other sources. The episodes need to preceding episode(s) to make any form of sense, standalones are completely self-contained, the episodes either side of them could be changed and it would have no effect. This does not apply to these episodes. Fan4Life (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I would kindly advise that you will do better at arguing for this if you stick to what makes DWM unreliable and your preferred sources credible. Stating I am wrong about saying it is possible the episodes could be interpreted as standalones - when others and other sources have also interpreted them as standalones - only appears to show that you are not willing to consider the topic objectively. Even though I agree with the use of DWM, I did say it is possible to consider them as a three parter and only that TWWL *could* make sense elsewhere (this is to show I understand your point of view). I hope you can take this on board. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. DWM is not reliable because it says in there that they made the decision to list them separately without official input, Moffat just allowed them to do this, and the reason they decided to list them separately was not because they are officially standalones, but for the convenience of readers since the episodes are less connected than other multi-parters. Radio Times, Digital Spy and other non-tabloid sites are reliable as they are required to have official confirmation for anything they present as being fact, they cannot go by their opinion or present anything unconfirmed as fact. Fan4Life (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The DWM quotes I've seen says they did get official input (they also said it was controversial - and I take that to mean controversial in the fandom - and therefore why we are having the discussion now). It also does not seem unfounded when you look at info coming out of the BBC. A blog directly from the BBC lists TGWD & TWWL & FTR separately, and HS/HB together [6]. While the Series 9 Boxset only lists (with no grouping at all) the episodes on the back - however in the booklet the episodes are grouped like DWM when providing behind the scenes info. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

They did not say they had official input, they said that Moffat allowed them to list them separately, and even then the reason for this was to make it more convenient for readers voting. Fan4Life (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That appears to be hugely paraphrasing what was actually stated about the matter and misrepresenting it. I would recommend you reread the previous thread on the matter - I wasn't previously involved with that one - I have only just read it properly now. Specifically review all the quotes there from DWM and its editor (if you don't have a copy of it) - it spells it out very clearly. Dresken (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I was involved in that discussion, it was back before I had an account, so I know about it. At the end, I gave in and agreed on the basis of "Heaven Sent" not have a TBC, but since then I have realised that "The Sontaran Stratagem" doesn't have TBC despite being the first part of a two-parter, so that argument holds no merit. I am not misinterpreting DWM, it does not say that Moffat views them as standalones, it does however say that they made the decision on their own (they merely got approval from Moffat) and that they made the decision for the convenience of the readers. The very fact that the source is open to interpretation shows it isn't suitable, sources have to explicitly say something for them to be used. This is like DWM listing Christmas specials as part of the most recent series (for example "Last Christmas" in Series 8), they aren't saying they are part of the series, they are doing it for the convenience of readers. Maybe the best source we have is the blog post from the official BBC website, I think that TGWD and TWWL are too different to be considered a two-parter and "Face the Raven" is too different from the following two episodes to be considered part one of a three-parter, not to mention different directors and writers. DWM itself supports listing HS and HB together, when they previewed the episodes in issue #493 they were listed together[7]. So what do you say to continuing to list TGWD, TWWL and "Face the Raven" separately and listing "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" as a two-parter? Fan4Life (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Using another DWM source is interesting as it remains consistent with using DWM as a source for this information. And like I said at the beginning "I support the use of DWM as the official source", I am less concerned about selecting one issues over the other - on that point I'm fine either way. However I would believe you will still get some resistance from others as the challenge now would be why one issue is a better source than the other. While I gave the sources of the BBC blog and the BluRay boxset - I am not sure about their encyclopaedic reliability as I have a suspicion they might be classed as primary sources - however maybe you can use the blog to provide support to your argument about which DWM issue is more valid - much like I did to try and back up that the DWM did seem like a reliable source. I would recommend closing off this thread and starting a new one - as the point has significantly changed from the groupings of several episodes to the grouping of two episodes - will hopefully make it clearer for others and you can get more input for a consensus. Also thank you for discussing this civilly - its good to see on Wikipedia. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Episode groupings

On official blog from the BBC lists "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" as a two-parter[8] and so did DWM when previewing the episodes in issue #493[9], no source can be more reliable than the official website and official magazine. "Heaven Sent" doesn't have a TBC, but that doesn't mean anything, "The Sontaran Stratagem" didn't have a TBC despite being the first part of a two-parter. "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are directly linked, they are by no means different enough to be considered standalones. Although DWM later listed them as standalones in the Season Survey, this was for the convenience of readers, plus the testimony for them being standalones is open to interpretation making it an unsuitable source as sources have to explicitly say something to be used. As it is backed-up by the official website, issue #493 is more reliable than issue #495, we can't use something that contradicts the official website as a source. Fan4Life (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sontaran Strategem had the preview of Poison Sky at the end after the credits and it was clearly a cliffhanger, you'd have to be mad not to say so. For me, Series 9 is a three-part ending, because the story isn't concluded after either "Face The Raven" or "Heaven Sent". Spa-Franks (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

That is a point, "Face the Raven" is just as connected to "Heaven Sent" as "Utopia" was to "The Sound of Drums", and that is a three-parter. Plus, the "Hell Bent" previously includes footage from "Face the Raven". What about TGWD and TWWL? Are they a two-parter? After careful consideration, I'd say yes, TGWD leads directly into TWWL, there is a TBC and the Next Time is after the credits, all the hallmarks of a two parter. The way I see it, an episode cannot be called a standalone if it leads directly into the following episode(s). Steven Moffat himself called the final 3 episodes a three-parter in an interview. So I think that TGWD and TWWL are a two-parter and "Face the Raven", "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are a three-parter. Fan4Life (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So, you've gone from saying "DWM is not an acceptable source for these matters" to "no source can be more reliable than the [...] official magazine"? "After careful consideration" is also considered O.R. (Note, I've no intention of being a consistent contributor to this discussion; the last one gave me a headache for weeks). Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Only because in issue #493 it was backed up by the website and wasn't open to interpretation. But maybe we can't use a source that classifies the episodes differently in different issues. I think since the episodes are formatted like all other multi-parters in Series 9 (TBC, next time trailer after the credits, previously at the start of the following episode) we can't consider them standalones. Fan4Life (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reviewed a copy of #493. Specifically the HS/HB article in it says We’re not even going to tell you if Heaven Sent and Hell Bent really form a two-parter or not. (The DWM team is divided on he subject. Half of us say it is, and the other half say it isn’t.)" [page 26] - which unfortunately means for issue #493 that it is not providing a source either way. However later they expand with some quotes from Moffat (which seem humorous now, given what we are actually debating) [page 31] “Are these episodes one- or two-parters?” DWM readers cry. Steven says: “Again, as a fan wanting to stack everything in order and understand everything precisely in terms of how many episodes there are and how many stories, I’m in a state about that. I have to sit and tell myself which ones really count as two-parters – which is completely against the whole idea, which is to break up the idea that we actually have to say! The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived were sort of a two-parter, and they were sort of not.” DWM is going with not...? “Well, you don’t need to have a definitive answer. Except when I’m being a fanboy; then I just go into a little meltdown and suck my thumb. I’m really, genuinely no better than anyone else. All the people who get the crossest at me are those most like me. Obviously, The Magician’s Apprentice and The Witch’s Familiar are the same story. You could make that one movie. And The Zygon Invasion and The Zygon Inversion. But Heaven Sent and Hell Bent... maybe Face the Raven, too... are they a mini serial? A story split in three, or two? In the end, it doesn’t really matter.”. What is clear here - Moffat is stating that TGWD, TWWL, FTR, HS, HB are not officially designated as being two/three parters and that the matter is actually open to interpretation. I think in light of other evidence the default needs to be each episode (from 2005) is assumed to be a single episode - with the burden of proof for linking any episodes relies on a direct statement from a reputable source. I am fine for DWM to take on the role as the formal source (as it has for the entire episode list to date) - DWM does state the episodes are split unambiguously in #495 and state they have backing from Moffat for stating so. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If they aren't officially designated multi-parters then why are they formatted as such (TBC, next time trailer after the credits, previously at the start of the next episode, cliffhanger)? Fan4Life (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Firstly wikipedia policy means we don't need to worry too much about that question, all of those items are from a primary source and require interpretation to their meaning - which is not appropriate choice for a Wikipedia article over a reliable secondary source. Secondly, to address your question directly, there are many examples of a TBC, next time trailer after the credits, previously at the start of the next episode, cliffhanger where it does not indicate a multi-parter - so our interpretation of this cannot be used to determine meaning (well unless there was a source stating this was how these events are to be interpreted always). Hope that helps. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

In this source[10] Steven Moffat himself calls the episodes a three-parter, we can't go against the word of Steven Moffat. Both these sources[11][12] call TGWD and TWWL a two-parter, and they will have been going by official confirmation. DWM is a not a reliable source as it is the only source that classes the episodes as standalones and it is outnumbered by sources that class the episodes as multi-parters, a source that no other sources back up and is contradicted by a great many reliable sources is not reliable and cannot be used. Fan4Life (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

My comments are going to be brief on the pages you reference. Please take these as short notes - no rudeness is meant - hopefully it give enough info to how the source are to be interpreted.

• RadioTimes: Has unrelated production team quotes. "We speculate wildly on what we might see in the upcoming two-part episode starring Maisie Williams and Rufus Hound" - the whole article is speculation before the episodes aired and provides several predictions that are ultimately not true, which calls the whole article into question of reliability. Also two of the times they state it is a two-parter - they also say it stars Rufus Hound - who was only in of the one episodes.
• Den of Geek: Has no production team quotes. "we want to see next week's episode as a result of it" They are reviewing one episode and are speculating on the next episode.
• EW: "would kick off a climactic trilogy of interconnected adventures" - trilogy does not automatically mean three-parter (can mean related individual works). "[The season] ends with three episodes" - every tv season ends with three episodes. "all of which cliffhanger into each other in a quite major way" - cliffhangers don't imply a multi-parter (see Almost People/Good Man Goes to War). “They’re very linked, but it won’t feel like a three-part story" this is close, but it is not exactly a direct statement - and still makes sense with the one from DWM #493 (where Moffat discusses the whole thing in more depth giving more context to the matter).

The speculation articles don't discredit DWM as a source, I don't think I have to elaborate any further on that. Short quotes from Moffat elsewhere that still make sense compared to the longer quotes from Moffat in DWM, also don't discredit DWM as a source. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

They aren't speculating on the status of the episodes, just what will happen. Publications have to have official confirmation for anything they present as being fact, so EW, Radio Times, etc. will have this. How come months ago the EW source I provided was what we were going by but now it is unacceptable. DWM cannot overrule the vast majority of sources including Moffat himself. Instead of trying to discredit reliable sources, give evidence for why we should take DWM over all other sources. Fan4Life (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"Publications have to have official confirmation for anything they present as being fact" - this is just not true - firstly if it were true libel wouldn't be a thing - and if it were true then we would be able to obtain this official confirmation ourselves as Wikipedia is also technically a publication. Also, if it were true, DWM would also have this official confirmation - which would still make this matter about the content contained within these articles as it has been all along. DWM #493 isn't overruling other sources, DWM are simply also quoting Moffat (however you appear to disregard this quote in light of another Moffat quote, it makes it seem like you think quoting Moffat only bears weight when it appears to agree with your personal opinion). Unfortunately EW's Moffat quote no longer stands on its own when you also consider the fuller discussion with Moffat in DWM - which expands upon and clarifies other quotes he has made in relation to the topic. If EW was the only source we had at the time then I can see why it could have been used at the time - however with further information things change. "Instead of trying to discredit reliable sources" - don't be so offensive about my integrity - I am perfectly happy to accept reliable sources that disagree with my personal opinion (e.g. I personally disagree that Utopia forms part of a three-parter and that Trial of a Time Lord is a 14-parter, but I accept even though there are other sources that agree with my personal opinion, it doesn't affect the reliability of the sources that have been used here). If you really must call on me to prove DWM's reliability: DWM is a long running magazine (36 years) with a close relationship to the DW production team - it's sole purpose for existence is being an authority on the topic of Doctor Who - and is contributed to and endorsed by the BBC and the DW production team. I'm sorry this outcome does not agree with your interpretation of the episodes. I will note at this point no one else has contributed much to this discussion but us, the matter has been settled previously to have the episodes separated and this discussion is doing nothing to gain support for a change. I would recommend that you need to leave it be for the time being until something major changes. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not that DWM doesn't agree with my opinion, it is that it doesn't agree with any other sources, it is contradicted by every other source, no other source has all five episodes as standalones. Referring to your earlier statement about them not being officially designated multi-parters, they aren't officially designated standalones either. In this source[13] Sarah Dollard who wrote "Face the Raven" says that it is a lead-in to the two-part finale. The evidence is stacked against DWM, the official website says the HS and HB are a two-parter, and no source is more reliable than the official website. Another reason that disqualifies DWM as a source is its inconsistency on the issue, they have gone from classing all but "Sleep No More" and "Face the Raven" as two-parters in issue #488 to classing all but TGWD, TWWL, "Sleep No More" and "Face the Raven" as two-parters in issue #493 to classing only episodes 1-4 and episodes 7 & 8 as two-parters in issue #495. In the past when we have used DWM for classification of episodes, they have been consistent on the issue at hand rather than repeatedly changing their stance. They have changed their view radically over the course of just 7 issues, we can't use a source that is so inconsistent, they haven't committed to a single stance on the episodes, if they were going by official designation, their classification wouldn't have changed so much in such a short space of time. I agree that TGWD, TWWL and FTR are standalones, I think that TGWD and TWWL are like "A Good Man Goes to War" and "Let's Kill Hitler", they are linked but predominantly self-contained, and "Face the Raven" is like "Turn Left", it leads in to the finale but isn't part of it. I say we continue to list TGWD, TWWL and FTR separately, but combine HS and HB. What do you say? Fan4Life (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually think you pretty much nailed it with the comment you made and then removed. It reflected quite accurately on why there is conflicting information and why the BBC blog could not be used. I'm sorry to resurrect it (you obviously changed your mind completely) but when I started writing this response I realised it already covered off most of what I would say anyway - so quoting saves me having to come up with a way to say the same thing myself. I suppose since there is so much conflicting information and Moffat has never explicitly called them multi-parters, they clearly aren't designated as such. Also "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" were produced separately, two-parters are always filmed together. As well as this, their is little continuation, if you take out the final moments of TGWD, FTR and HS, they are completely self-contained. I think since DWM is an official tie-in and Moffat agreed that they are standalones, they are. Moffat said a long time ago that there would be one or two linked stories, I imagine he meant TGWD and TWWL and FTR, HS and HB. Plus the episodes are not nearly connected enough to be considered multi-parters. We can't use the BBC blog as a source, it was written before the production schedule was changed, plus it doesn't have Moffat's input. I agree that they are standalones and I am closing this discussion. Fan4Life (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC). The only thing I would add is that the production office appears to have been deliberately vague prior to the episodes airing (which is why we see some inconsistency between issues) - which should be unsurprising as Moffat does like to surprise us. I think all episodes can only ever be assumed to be standalones until proven otherwise - I think these quotes sum up the official position on the matter, Moffat being ambiguous and discussing the philosophy of standalones and multi-parters: "But Heaven Sent and Hell Bent... maybe Face the Raven, too... are they a mini serial? A story split in three, or two? In the end, it doesn’t really matter.”. But then later Moffat actually makes a decision when it mattered: "That's how Steven asked us to count them in the magazine" and "partly because Steven Moffat agreed when we asked him how he thought we should arrange the Season Survey form". It also appears that no one else is interested in re-discussing something they have already discussed and decided - to me it shows if there was going to be any consensus for a change, other people would be participating by now. You might (like me with Utopia and Trial of a Time Lord) have to come to terms with the current consensus for the time being. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I simply cannot just live with the consensus, I disagree with it completely, and as the discussion has been revived, a consensus needs to be reached again. Although they were produced separately, they had the same director, the same writer and the same producer. As I said before, DWM is disqualified as a source due to its inconsistency on the issue. In the Sarah Dollard interview I linked to, she says that Steven Moffat and the team approached her and asked her to make "Face the Raven" a lead-in to the two-part finale. I think this discussion has confused Moffat's word and official designation, a Moffat endorsed opinion does not constitute official designation and certainly doesn't override the official website, and that is what DWM issue #495 is, an opinion endorsed by Moffat. While the blog on the official website was originally written before the change in the production schedule, it was updated many times after the change and the episodes continued to be listed as a two-parter. This article[14] from the official website which was published on 10 December 2015, again refers to the episodes as a two-parter. In this video[15] Rachel Talalay calls the episodes a two-parter, and I think she'd know since she directed the episodes, plus this video is newer than issue 495 of DWM, it was posted on YouTube on 21 January 2016 (it was originally posted on the official website on 12 January 2016), DWM issue 495 was released 7 January 2016, meaning that this video is the most up to date source we have, it is the most recent statement on the official designation of the episodes, and one of the justifications of using DWM as a source in the previous discussion was that it was the most up to date source, which it isn't. We have to go by the most up to date source, there is no justification for going by an older source which is contradicted by the most recent source. So what do you say to leaving TGWD, TWWL and FTR separate, but combining HS and HB? Fan4Life (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

as the discussion has been revived, a consensus needs to be reached again - this discussion has only really ever been between you and I - nobody else is actively participating even after two RfCs - even if we did agree it would not matter - as it would be WP:CONLIMITED anyway. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent"

In this video[16] Rachel Talalay calls "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" a two-parter, and she is the director so she would know. The production team clearly think of the episodes as a two-parter, Rachel Talalay would not have called the episodes a two-parter if they were not officially designated as such. As well as this, the video is newer than issue 495 of DWM, it was posted on YouTube on 21 January 2016 (it was originally posted on the official website on 12 January 2016[17]), DWM issue 495 was released 7 January 2016, meaning that this video is the most up to date source we have, it is the most recent statement on the official designation of the episodes, and one of the justifications of using DWM as a source in the previous discussion was that it was the most up to date source, which it isn't. We have to go by the most up to date source, there is no justification for going by an older source which is contradicted by the most recent source. Fan4Life (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

All such edits of changing "Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent" to a two-parter have been reverted. You have not yet gained consensus that these two episodes are a two parter. If there are no other editors discussing it, a one-man consensus does not stand. Per your previous post, it's not that a consensus needs to be reached again with the revival of this discussion, it's that a different consensus needs to be reached before anything is changed that is supported by the currently standing consensus. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The edits were an attempt to stimulate discussion as per WP:BOLD, so I will not be reinstating the edits unless consensus is reached. Fan4Life (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps try posting on the talk page of the main Doctor Who article. More editors are likely to have that page on their watchlists. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. I will close this discussion. Fan4Life (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

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

RfC: Episode Groupings

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

---

• Previous discussions:

Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)/Archive 2#"The Girl Who Died" / "The Woman Who Lived" - Two-Parter? – October to December 2015

Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)/Archive 2#Final 3 episodes – November 2015 to February 2016

Are "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" and "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" two-parters? Fan4Life (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

In this video[18] Rachel Talalay calls "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" a two-parter, and she is the director so she would know. The production team clearly think of the episodes as a two-parter, Rachel Talalay would not have called the episodes a two-parter if they were not officially designated as such. As well as this, the video is newer than issue 495 of DWM, it was posted on YouTube on 21 January 2016 (it was originally posted on the official website on 12 January 2016[19]), DWM issue 495 was released 7 January 2016, meaning that this video is the most up to date source we have, it is the most recent statement on the official designation of the episodes, and one of the justifications of using DWM as a source in the previous discussion was that it was the most up to date source, which it isn't. We have to go by the most up to date source, there is no justification for going by an older source which is contradicted by the most recent source. In a past discussion, it was decided that TGWD and TWWL were a two-parter based on the fact it had a TBC, and while you could argue that TBCs have been used inconsistently, in those instances the episodes were clearly not multi-parters, and in this instance there is official evidence that they are a two-parter. Also, the reason for not using Doctor Who Extra in the previous discussion was that they have been inconsistent on how they group episodes, but that isn't really true, it is clear that in Series 8 they did one for each episode regardless of grouping and in Series 9 they did one for each story, why would two episodes have a joint Doctor Who Extra if they are not a two-parter? The production team make Doctor Who Extra, they would have made the decision to do joint Doctor Who Extras for the episodes and they wouldn't have done this if they weren't officially designated two-parters, so they clearly see both TGWD and TWWL and HS and HB as two-parters. Doctor Who Extra is more reliable than DWM, the people who make DWM just have ties to the production team, whereas the people who make Doctor Who Extra are the production team. If it isn't one episode for each story, then what is it, one episode for random parings with no relation to actual groupings? The DWE groupings clearly represent the official designations, there is no other explanation for why the episodes have joint DWE episodes. Fan4Life (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stick to having the discussion on one page. It's getting frustrating keeping track of it as you constantly add and remove it to multiple pages. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I have moved it back here as it is relevant to this specific page. Fan4Life (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

And yet you're still doing it, adding content, deleting it, archiving it, un-archiving it, mass-deleting sections, reverting that. Either start the discussion, or close it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I changed my mind a couple of times. Can we get on with this discussion, pointing out my changing of comments is not helping to advance discussion. Fan4Life (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no plans to; I discussed this months ago, my stance is obvious. You've submitted another RfC, so we'll see how that goes. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. Fan4Life (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I always considered The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived to be a two parter myself, and the finale a three parter. However, this was argued so much during the months after the episodes airing that I'm not really prepared to take part in another debate. We've decided to refer to the episodes as single parters, and while some of us didn't agree with it at first we seem to be at peace with it now and don't see the point in arguing about it anymore. But in the end it doesn't really matter, it's just a number. BlueBlue11 (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason why I have revived the discussion is newer evidence and the fact that DWE has specific groupings. It does matter as we can't list things incorrectly. It would be really helpful if you did take part in this discussion. Fan4Life (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The listing given here is the one given by DWM after consulting with Steven Moffat, even if the editor of said publication did admit he took delight in seeing how much it was tormenting the Wikipedia editors (and Steven Moffat has confessed to similarly enjoying this activity in the past) that is the correct line-up of the current production team. They may change their mind in future or when the new team take over in 2017/18 they may come up with their own retrospective system, but we really have to take the information given at face value. This is the list that is correct for our purposes here, at least according to the production team (we don't have to listen to them as we are independent, but that's their current suggestion). Ruffice98 (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fan4Life: Continue to force these edits, and I will report you for edit-warring and disruptive editing when you still have not gained a new wide consensus to override that of the previous discussion. "Forcing" the edits to get editors to discuss it is not how you deal with an issue. If no-one wants to discuss, then you'll just have to let it be. And do be aware of WP:CANVAS. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Fan4Life: Firstly good on you for being passionate about the topic. I am sure you are trying your best with navigating all the rules and policies here and you want to do the right thing, so I am only going to mention this does appear to be moving in to the territory of the last two points of Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errors and I am sure you will take it on board. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have been requested to comment so I shall. I have not contributed to this discussion because I really do not care enough one way or another about the issue. The original consensus is fine with me. There, I've commented. Good luck sorting through all this, folks. Peace out. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 05:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really sure either, this is too complicated. I don't mind too much either way. nyuszika7h (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ruffice98: It is clearly not the view of the production team as the episodes are grouped together in Doctor Who Extra and Rachel Talalay has called "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" a two-parter after the magazine was published, making it our most recent source. If nothing contradictory had been given near or after the magazine was published then you would be right, but contradictory evidence of equal (or arguably higher) reliability has been given. The people who make DWM merely have ties to the production team, whereas the people who make DWE are the production team, meaning that it is more reliable. @AlexTheWhovian: It was a bold edit as per WP:BRD in an attempt to stimulate discussion, so I have no intention of reinstating the edits unless consensus is reached. @Nyuszika7H: Since you aren't sure either way, you could be useful to this discussion as you are neutral and therefore will listen to both sides with an open mind. Fan4Life (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Mm, that's what you said last time you did the exact same edits and were told not to. WP:BRD's bold edits only apply once before reverts and discussions take place. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Different discussion. Plus, the cycle allows another bold edit after the first edit has been reverted and discussed. Fan4Life (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Admins can, and may, interpret that as the same edit if it's similar in intent to the first edit. Just a little heads-up. DonQuixote (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have been asked by Fan4Life for an opinion. After reading most of what's been said since 2015 (who in their right mind would care to read all of it?), let me be as clear as I can be. Consensus was reached in 2015 based on discussion of appropriate sources. Explain why Rachel Talalay's opinion today is more significant than Moffat's yesterday, given he was showrunner at the time and she was... who exactly, at the time? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss this politely and base your argument on sources, the fact that consensus was reached in February doesn't matter, that doesn't make your argument better than mine. Rachel Talalay directed the episodes, her word is just as valid. Plus, DWE groups the episodes together and that is made by the production team including Moffat. Fan4Life (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

As to whether I was not polite in my above statements, if anyone else found my statement (or my asides) was (or were, or are) impolite, I apologize. But I am basing my argument on the source you are providing as against those previously provided. Being director of a TV episode or two is not the same thing as being director of a film: you are assigned that role by the showrunner, just as being a script writer does not make you the script editor. There's a hierarchy of knowledge, expertise, etc., and she's lower than he is. She is a spoke or two in the front wheel, and Moffat was the car itself and the driver. Now, I have not seen the video in question, so I must ask others: is this referred to only by her, as some off-the-cuff remark in passing ("the two episodes I directed, the two-parter I directed, when I directed those two...") or was this acually the subject of some discussion on the programme? Was it followed up with some sort of official statement anywhere numbering the episodes as other than single episodes? Is there anything officially designating them as other than single episodes? If not, then the burden of proof remains with those who claim these episodes are two-part rather than the default position, which is that they are standalone. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have been asked to comment on this HIGHLY IMPORTANT ISSUE. I have not paid any attention to this problem until now, so I have to start with basic questions: 1) isn't the entire numbering of episodes basically original research since these numbers are not used by anyone else? and 2) does anyone but the editors who put the numbers in pay them any attention? If the answers are 1) yes and 2) no, then I would suggest just removing them entirely and solving the problem to the general satisfaction. Mezigue (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

1) No, the numbering began long before Wikipedia editors came on the scene. See, for example, the note on the number of The Two Doctors, which cites DWM versus DG (and decides DWM caries more weight). 2) The answer to [1] being no, then it follows that the answer to [2] is yes, but it would be impossible to definitively say no in any case since we don't know what our readers pay attention to--or will do in the future.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I am in favour generally of "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" being considered a 2 parter and "Face the Raven", "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" being a 3 parter, as there is clear links and continuing story as serials. However I need to actually read this discussion to check what issues have come up so I can consider them, I have been unable to commit the time to doing so so far, so I wll be coming back later for a more informed opinion of the matter. Lotrjw (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to go back to Archive 2 then, you'll find most of it is devoted to this topic, as is most of this page now. We're all well aware of the links between the episodes, that's never been in question. Generally, it's not about what's in the episodes, it's how they're treated in the sources. That being said, at the end of the second archive, the editor who started this discussion, now for the third time, conceded that Heaven Sent and Hell Bent were not a two-parter due to the absence of a To Be Continued card. He has yet to explain why that conclusion was wrong. If the director considered it to be a two-parter at the time, why did she not include a 'to be continued' card? Not saying that would have made it a two-parter on its own (that was also discussed), but conventional wisdom would suggest it is at least a minimal requirement for something to be considered the first part of something else. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Quote: "isn't the entire numbering of episodes basically original research since these numbers are not used by anyone else?" I believe so, to a certain degree (Planet of the Dead was advertised as the 200th story). That's why I started a discussion on why the overall number episode should be used over the story number some time ago, which it should be - Doctor Who is the only series not to do so. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not original research if it's based on sources; I gave the example of the Two Doctors article for to address that very question. We can argue whether they're reliable or not, certainly, but we didn't make them up out of thin air. In any case, that's another discussion entirely. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Us editors determining the story numbers at this very moment without any reliable sources that explicitly state the story numbers of the discussed episodes – that's original research. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

So DWM stopped counting at some point? But like I said, that is a separate discussion, is it not? It's not about whether or not these episodes are single or not. Despite Mezigue's assertion, episode numbers disappearing would not, unfortunately, resolve the question at hand. Where did you originally begin that other one and was it not resolved by consensus? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that a count of the stories is classed as a routine calculation (WP:CALC) therefore OR would not be an accurate accusation - especially when there is reliable sources for some of the milestones (eg 200th story = "Planet of the Dead"). It is only the classification of some episodes being standalones or multiparters in series 9 that is in dispute here. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@ZarhanFastfire: In the video Rachel Talalay says "I'm tired of saying how different the episodes are. They are continuous, they are a two-parter." A TBC is not a basic requirement for something to be considered a two-parter, none of the two-parters in Series 1 had a TBC, "The Sontaran Stratagem" didn't have a TBC. Fan4Life (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason not to use DWE, why would two episodes have a joint episode if they aren't a two-parter? If it isn't one episode for each story, then what is it? One episode for random pairings with no relation to official designation? DWE is made by the production team including Moffat, meaning that it is as reliable as a source can get. Plus, at no point does DWM state that the episodes are officially designated as standalones, it is very clear that it was predominantly their decision to list them separately, as supported by this statement, "Controversially (perhaps), we've decided not to combine The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived, or Face the Raven, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent - as despite their linked nature, the individual styles of each episode meant that we couldn't really consider them as true multi-parters, and we didn't want to short change readers by forcing you to give a combined score." This shows that the decision to list them separately was motivated by ease of reviewing and scoring, not their official designation, the phrasing makes it clear it was predominantly their decision. DWE is more representative of official designation as it is made by the production team and is constant, it isn't just an opinion expressed by one member of the production team one time, it doesn't change how it groups them over time, it is endorsed and funded by the BBC, it is the official view of the production team as a whole including Moffat, whether or not Moffat was speaking officially when giving DWM the green light to list them separately is very debatable, especially since it wasn't a formal interview, it wasn't really an interview at all, it was under completely informal circumstances. Fan4Life (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot to respond to here, for now I will confine myself to the misrepresentation you are making of the quotation (which you also made the first time round): "we've decided not to combine The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived, or Face the Raven, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent - as despite their linked nature, the individual styles of each episode meant that we couldn't really consider them as true multi-parters" (my emphasis). That is the reason being given, based on content and not merely "motivated by ease of reviewing and scoring, not their official designation"--if it were, they'd have done the same thing with the two-parters which were actually reviewed as two-parters. I suggest we keep this argument to the new evidence and not re-hash the old, which was resolved once already. Let someone else who can see the TV content (DWE) tackle that, as not being in the UK these last few years, I don't think I can access the content online. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@ZarhanFastfire: The full episodes of DWE for Series 9 are DVD only, but the point is that TGWD and TWWL are grouped and so are HS and HB, if they weren't officially designated two-parters, then they would have separate DWE episodes. OK, the argument I made about DWM was old, but it is true that when they conversed with Moffat, it was completely informal. I do think that from the wording it is clear that it is mainly their opinion and they probably would have separated them even if Moffat had not agreed. Fan4Life (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

My two bits, wait for more sources and wait for sources that are less ambiguous. As it is now, there's some original interpretation/research creeping into the discussion. DonQuixote (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: Rachel Talalay calling the episodes a two-parter and DWE grouping the episodes together are not ambiguous. Also, at this point, it is highly unlikely that any more official sources are going to come along, so that is not a viable option. Fan4Life (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. Here's another from above: Being director of a TV episode or two is not the same thing as being director of a film: you are assigned that role by the showrunner, just as being a script writer does not make you the script editor. There's a hierarchy of knowledge, expertise, etc., and she's lower than [Moffat] is. More sources making the same point as your one or two sources would be better, as well as Moffat being less ambiguous. And that's my two bits. DonQuixote (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: Rachel Talalay calling the episodes a two-parter and DWE grouping the episodes together are not ambiguous and are not open to interpretation. The interpretations and opinions in this discussion have come from the opposition, I would like to mention that the only justification for continuing to list the episodes as they are is the fact that consensus has been reached before, which is irrelevant, the fact that their point of view matches the previous consensus does not make their argument any better. All other sources are old, from before the episodes aired, and so are not suitable now. The quality of sources is more important than quantity. DWE is the best source we have, it is clearly representative of official designation as it is made by the production team and is constant, it isn't just an opinion expressed by one member of the production team one time, it doesn't change how it groups them over time, it is endorsed and funded by the BBC, it is the official view of the production team as a whole including Moffat. Fan4Life (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The interpretations and opinions in this discussion have come from the opposition...

See WP:IDHT. DonQuixote (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: I made that statement because it seemed to me that you were attempting to discredit my argument. Fan4Life (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is based on your interpretation. That's why I suggested waiting for more sources and/or less ambiguous, more definitive sources (and this is, to a large part, why I stayed out of this discussion.) DonQuixote (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: My argument is not based on interpretation, Rachel Talalay's quote "I'm tired of saying how different the episodes are. They are continuous, they are a two-parter." That is completely closed the interpretation, it explicitly calls HS and HB a two-parter. I am not interpreting DWE, it is closed to interpretation, it is common sense that since two episodes have a joint DWE episode, they are a two-parter. If it isn't one episode for each story, then what is it? What do you propose it is? One episode for random pairings with no relation to official designation? There can be no other reason for why the episodes have joint DWE episodes, it isn't interpretation to make that claim, it is common sense, it could not be interpreted any other way. Why do I need more sources? I have provided two explicit and highly reliable sources. The previous discussion was based on 1 source which was contradicted by every single other source, but they need more sources? My argument is based entirely on facts, on reliable sources. Fan4Life (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If you have to appeal to common sense (aka argument from incredulity), then you're trying to convince someone that your interpretation is the correct one. DonQuixote (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DQ, but maybe he's not being as explicit as he could be about why it is interpretation. It can be really hard to see it for what it is when things seem that obvious. Fan4Life, what you've got hold of here is a reliable source, all right, but it's a reliable source for one person's opinion, that of an episode director. As I pointed out before, you have no reliable source stating that anyone else important enough in the production agrees with her, certainly not the showrunner; you keep putting words in his mouth like that, unfortunately, in your zeal--in fact, she seems as exasperated as you must be at having to repeat something which seems obvious to her, which quite strongly implies that lots of people disagree--hardly an open and shut case then. I could venture a guess as to who these people are that she's been arguing with, but that would be useless speculation. So, you have her opinion, which you then interpret as being the opinion of all the other people involved in the production, including Moffat. That is one massive leap of logic. That's why it's ambiguous. And that's why we are no further ahead than before. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

DWE is made the production team including Moffat, he runs DWE, he himself would have made the decision to do joint episodes, and no that isn't interpretation, no decisions to do with the production of DWE would have been made without him, he is the executive producer. Fan4Life (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If you cite a source verifying that line of reasoning, then other people won't see it as your interpretation. DonQuixote (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not interpretation, interpretation is forming your own opinion on what something means. Pointing out the obvious is not interpretation, stating the role and influence of the executive producer is not interpretation. Steven Moffat is the executive producer of DWE, nothing happens without his input, suggesting that DWE production decisions are made without him is the same as suggesting that main show production decisions are made without him, he has the same role in the production of both. If DWE in Series 9 isn't one episode for each story, then what do you propose it is? One episode for random pairings with no relation to official designation? Fan4Life (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Cite a source that shows that nothing happens without his input is true and thus leads to your interpretation of suggesting that DWE production decisions are made without him is the same as suggesting that main show production decisions are made without him, he has the same role in the production of both (which also requires citing a source). If you can cite a source or sources, then it's definitely not your interpretation of events and relationships. DonQuixote (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• "[N]othing happens without his input" is an interpretation implying she is not entitled to express her own opinion even if it deviates from anyone (or everyone) else's which it clearly does by her own admission spoken in the same breath. You are taking one person's view and magnifying it to encompass a much larger view, which is your own interpretation. Unlike the main programme, which is a work of fiction, the words spoken by people (not characters) are not necessarily scripted or censored (sure, they may be edited to a greater or lesser degree, but we have no way of knowing how much). Perhaps it is a two-parter, perhaps it isn't. Perhaps Moffat agrees, perhaps he doesn't, or actually doesn't care, or even enjoys seeing us do this (there's evidence for that, remember?) and he is, for now, deliberately allowing things to remain ambiguous. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Going back to an earlier point in the second discussion, I found this: "We’re not even going to tell you if Heaven Sent and Hell Bent really form a two-parter or not. (The DWM team is divided on he subject. Half of us say it is, and the other half say it isn’t.)" Basically, now, all we now know is the identity of one member of the half (that's a 50-50 split) of the production team who agree with you, Fan4Life, as stated in the sources. Which means nothing has changed. We already knew from the previous source that there was a split of opinion and it remains so as stated in the new source. You interpret her singular opinion to be Moffat's. What she actually states (I believe X, but others don't) is consistent with the previously understood presentation of facts, which is that the team were split. That is the status quo.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop attempting to discredit my argument by falsely accusing it of being interpretation. It is not interpretation in any way. I have a solid argument. How come it wasn't interpretation to take DWM's informal discussion with Moffat as being official? Or form a specific view on what their vague statements were saying? The answer is it was interpretation. @ZarhanFastfire: That is an old quote from a source that has changed their view since, it has no bearing on this discussion. It is not a 50/50 split of the show's production team, it is a 50/50 split of the DWM production team, it isn't the same thing. Fan4Life (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you cite a source that says what you're saying? That's the easiest way of showing that's it's not your interpretation and at the same time strengthen your argument. As for the current consensus...as I've said, I stayed out of this discussion because, yeah, the above was an interpretation as well (albeit one with a source attached to it). DonQuixote (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, have a care, you are accusing a very well-respected editor (DonQuixote) of acting in bad faith (that's what a false accusation is) while your counterargument to him just then boiled down to "Shut up, I'm right, I'm right, and you know what else? I'm right." That's not helping. Re DWM, your version of how consensus was achieved is incorrect: it was not taken by us as official that they were not two-parters, but rather that the necessary default position (every episode not called Part 1/Part 2 is not a serial or two-parter unless proven otherwise) had not been successfully challenged. The burden of proof is on you; we have not had anything officially overturning that position from reliable sources. All we've had is you insisting that X means Y which is an interpretation (on this see further below). Regarding my last contribution, I stand corrected as to who was stating why they were split in that quote, but they were only reflecting the fact that nothing officially was stated, so the point is the same. Returning to the present: she has an opinion and lots of people she's spoken to have disagreed with her. You have not explained why she (X) somehow represents the official voice of either Moffat (Y), the entire production team (Y-prime), the BBC (Y-prime-squared), or anyone else other than herself there. Here's how you could help: if you can prove DWE itself packaging those two epsiodes makes them a single story officially. You can do that, for example, by finding a source explicitly stating something like DWE never puts things together unless they are a single story. Here's why: there are interpretations other than yours possible for why they are together in that DWE: a matter of convenience, for example (it was made for a DVD which was to contain both episodes, after all, the director was the same, so they interviewed her just the once, etc., etc.). As has been stated before, the mere presence of two episodes on a single DVD means nothing, likewise the presence of slashes, etc. A DVD extra talking about the same two episodes as are on the DVD is to be expected. It doesn't mean anything else. When the question being asked is Why? it tends to have lots of possible answers, virutally all of them speculation. Why does the boxset have a DWE discussing two episodes together? "Because both are on the boxset" is as valid as "because they are the same story." My answer is an obvious one, it's speculation--but so is yours, that's the point. I know it's hard because you feel very strongly about this. But you need to get your head around it. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@ZarhanFastfire: Please discuss this issue politely. Fan4Life (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fan4Life, I honestly have no idea what it is you think I just said that's impolite, really I don't, but regardless of that, you're not doing yourself any favours by ignoring the substance of what is being said by others and focussing only on what you see as my impoliteness here. I've apologized to you once already, on your talk page, for my initial reaction to this third RfC, perhaps you haven't seen it, perhaps that's where this is coming from. But if not, if you truly feel that aggrieved at anything I've said above, and if it helps you move on so you can respond to the substance of what we've been saying to you, then here it is, once more: I'm sorry. A little ironic, as I genuinely feel for you in this. Did you think I was being sarcastic? I have gone out of my way to show you what you could do to get your way here, and yes, where you are also going wrong, but if the former's not welcome, so be it, I'll stick to the latter. From now on I will emulate the master of brevity, DonQuixote. Assuming that is satisfactory, do you actually have anything else to say of substance in response? Do you propose to continue this with any fresh arguments or new sources? It's no good remaining silent, repeating the same thing, and telling people not to find fault in your argument. It kind of defeats the purpose of the talk page if we can't engage in meaningful dialogue. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The impolite part of what you commented is the latter half of your first sentence, it is disparaging my argument. Can I please ask what disqualifies DWE as a source? Because I don't see why it isn't an acceptable source. Fan4Life (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

[W]hy would two episodes have a joint episode if they aren't a two-parter? If it isn't one episode for each story, then what is it?

Those questions show that it's an interpretation--nothing wrong with the source itself, but it doesn't explicitly state what you want it to say. Cite a source that makes their intent clear. DonQuixote (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you appear to be convinced that there is another reason for the episodes having a joint DWE episode, I would appreciate being provided with said reason. Fan4Life (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No one needs to answer that question. Your argument is "DWE has a paired episode therefore the episodes are a two-parter" - this is exactly A and B therefore C (read WP:SYNTH) and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Requesting that anyone else should provide another reason is wasting their time asking them to SYNTH also. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

And besides, I already provided you with a possible reason. Go back and read it, I am done repeating myself. I, too, refer you to WP:IDHT. In the sentence to which you refer, I was referencing the fact that you were no longer attempting to defend your position with reasoned argument: you were insisting that DonQuixote simply "stop" disagreeing with you/undermining your argument (that is, basically, telling him to shut up) and then insisting three times that you were right. If you found the paraphrase less than palatable, well, I might refer you to what Oscar Wilde said in the preface to Dorian Gray concerning Caliban's reaction to seeing his own face in a mirror, and finally, refer you to WP:BOOMERANG. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, it is assuming that them having a joint episode means they are a two-parter, plus on the official BBC website they were listed separately and were not announced as a two-parter unlike TMA/TWF, UTL/BTF, TZI/TZI and HS/HB, they were announced as two consecutive period adventures. I think our best source is the official BBC website itself which has continually referred to "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" as a two-parter[20], even after broadcast[21]. It being stated on the official website multiple times shows that it is the BBC's offical stance on the matter, and in the hierarchy of authority/knowledge the BBC itself is most definitely at the top. Fan4Life (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Now you're cooking with gas. Well done. Not that it matters, but I'm a bit confused: were different areas of the BBC web site inconsistent, or did it change over time? I'm amazed no-one spotted it till now. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

this has come up before - however requires an assumption once again - it only lists the titles together - it makes no statement about the partedness status (much like DVD slashes cannot be used to indicate partedness, I don't think it can be used either). I had not seen the other before, but to me reads like hyperbole (or marketing speak) and I'm personally not sure that it outranks a directly stated quote from Moffat with reasoning in DWM - however that's me - others might look at it differently. Either way if we only have to keep this discussion up for either 37 or 38 more stories - and they'll hopefully announce the 300th story and finally settle this one way or another. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's see 37/38 divided by around 8 stories a year, carry the ... four or five years, about as many years as Moffat thinks the show has left (Minimally! I hasten to add, all the while conceding there is WP:NORUSH). Seriously, point taken about [2]'s being a kind of "download both parts" and not being far from "collect them all". Frustrating. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

In the second source it clearly says "they combined to create a two-part adventure". @Dresken: It does not require an assumption, the episodes being listed as "Episodes 11 and 12: Heaven Sent / Hell Bent" is clear in its meaning, there is simply no mistaking it. Also, that was the original source so it is clearly acceptable. Fan4Life (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The assumption you are making is "The episodes are listed together therefore they are a two parter." That is the mistake you are making with it. Dresken (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I provided another source that clearly states "they combined to create a two-part adventure" backing up both my claims and the other source, thus making it not an assumption as an assumption is without proof. Fan4Life (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken - you are definitely making an unproved assumption on the titles listed together- even if the other source is correct it doesn't prove anything about that one. As for the other source, I'll repeat myself, it still reads like hyperbole - which in my opinion makes it worthless compared to the DWM source. Dresken (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not "mistaken". A source from the BBC itself saying "they combined to create a two-part adventure" is undeniable. You are saying that DWM has more authority than the BBC itself which is ludicrous and untrue. It is not hyperbole, it explicitly states the nature of the episodes. Saying it is hyperbole is beyond assumption, beyond interpretation, it is plucking a reason to discredit the source out of thin air. It is not an assumption to come to the conclusion that they are a two-parter based on the fact that they are listed together just like every other two-parter in the series. This is ridiculous, anyone would come to the conclusion that they are two-parter, if they weren't then they would be listed on their own, listing them together when they aren't a two-parter would be misuse of basic organization, and you are suggesting that the BBC would do this, that they lack knowledge of basic organizational structure. It is nonsensical to even suggest such a thing, to suggest that the BBC, or anyone for that matter, would list standalones together the same way as two-parters, it is just simply denial of evidence. Fan4Life (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Saying it is hyperbole is beyond assumption" - I've already acknowledged that it was a personal opinion - "to me reads like hyperbole (or marketing speak) and I'm personally not sure that it outranks a directly stated quote from Moffat with reasoning in DWM - however that's me - others might look at it differently" "in my opinion makes it worthless - so it is unfair and unfounded of you to question my integrity there.
• "DWM has more authority than the BBC itself" - its not exactly about DWM's vs BBC's authority - DWM quotes Moffat's opinion (you know the showrunner and the guy that wrote it) - and to me the BBC blog reads like an ad to drum up excitement and viewers. A reasonable person would consider that far from ludicrous to weigh the showrunner's opinion over an ad.
• "to suggest that the BBC ... would list standalones together" - and it has happened before on DVD covers - which is one of the reasons why we can't make assumptions about the meaning of something not stated WP:SYNTH.
• "simply denial of evidence" - I'm not denying the evidence - but here we don't get the luxury of interpreting evidence - that is what is called Original Research.

Cheers, Dresken (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that you simply do not agree with the sources and are scraping the barrel for reasons not to use them. I am not interpreting anything, both the sources are explict. DWM does not quote Moffat, they simply refer to an opinion he gave one time in informal circumstances. And yes you are denying evidence, you are coming up with reasons not to use the sources which are based purely opinion and hold no factual merit. Fan4Life (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a flag of caution, but you have to be careful to avoid cherry picking sources. We have two conflicting sources and each must be given due weight. Neither one, at the moment, is evidence-exclamation-point. You should discuss why one is better than the other and not force one over the other. DonQuixote (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I am just irritated by the simply invalid reasons not to use them that have been provided. Fan4Life (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fan4Life: Stating my opinion but indicating I'm leaving it open for discussion seems to be fair behaviour on my part - it should show I'm willing to let others discuss the issue and come to a different consensus than my opinion. In this month long, several thread discussion - you have raised many sources that don't stand up to scrutiny - and accuse me of "scraping the barrel". You have misquoted (accidentally or not) several of sources so they look to support your point of view, then reject them when its pointed out there's more to those quotes - and you accuse me of "denying evidence". All this time I have given you the benefit of the doubt that these behaviours are being misinterpreted by me or at least not on purpose - I would kindly request that you do the same with me, and stop flinging personal accusations at me. Also I am not the boss of Wikipedia - I cannot use "invalid reasons" to enforce my point of view - I am allowed state my opinion on the quality of sources - it is up to consensus if that opinion gets accepted - if someones opinion makes you angry or irritated try some points out from WP:CALM before taking it out on someone else. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I have not misquoted sources. The official BBC website most certainly does stand up to scrutiny. Fan4Life (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I take it your first sentence has the word "today" implied. You have been called several times for misrepresenting sources from the first discussion through to the third. So you should expect people to treat your claims with a great deal of scrutiny (as they always should). Yes, the BBC web site in general is a reliable source, but it's also a big web site, not a monolith. I'm not offering an opinion one way or the other on the latest source(s), just suggesting you take Dresken's advice: keep calm and don't throw a boomerang. There is no monopoly of common sense, reasoning, or expertise here. We are all in this together, and if you try to see others' objections as helping us all to achieve a common goal, that would go some way to making your experience here both more enjoyable and more productive. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I took the statement to be referring to what I quoted from the BBC website, I must have misinterpreted it. There is nothing that discredits the official BBC website as it has remained constant in its classification of the episodes and in the hierarchy of knowledge/authority they are at the top. The only argument that is not opinion-based that can be provided is the date the articles were published, but that doesn't matter, the date is irrelevant to the reliability of a source especially if said source has been constant. Fan4Life (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

High yes, top no. The BBC is a very large organisation, the team running their website are connected to the production team certainly but are not a part of it, and have demonstrated this in the past with some rather obvious errors and disregard for the official word (the David Yates' film incident always springs to mind where in spite of instructions from BBC Wales that the story was false they went with what BBC News were telling them instead). This matter is fairly simple. Doctor Who Magazine reported a list of stories and made it clear (courtesy of the editor) that this is what both DWM and Steven Moffat support as the official listing and what they wanted for the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is of course neutral and independent and is in no way reliant on "official" sources (they need only be reliable sources) but that at the time was the situation. We have a director saying she considers it a two parter, we have an actor saying he considers it a three parter and a publication telling us that they on instructions from the head writer and executive producer consider these all independent one parters. At the time it was decided that clearly out of the three, the publication (and through that the word of the head of the production team) was the highest source, after all Steven Moffat not only wrote three of the disputed episodes but commissioned and structured the entire series, it is ultimately his job to decide how the episodes break down so his word is the top authority in the matter.

As I've said already, this is not my own opinion, this was the consensus of the editors at the time and their reasoning still stands. Neither Steven Moffat, nor Tom Spilsbury have moved from their position and there is no source to question their position (which is really what you need, not somebody else offering their opinion on the matter). If you can find something saying that Steven Moffat intended it to be a two (or three) parter then we can go with that instead, at the moment our best source tells us that he views it as single parters. Ruffice98 (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It cannot be called the official listing when a source with more authority contradicts it. The BBC is most definitely at the top, everyone else in the hierarchy works for them, and therefore cannot be above. Fan4Life (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

But they don't have more authority. This is just another part of the hierarchy. At best that makes them equals, in which case we have to ask who is the more reliable out of the two. We have the official website seemingly sourcing a director, and the official magazine very definitely sourcing the showrunner, executive producer and writer of the story. The consensus is that Moffat's word wins between the two given its his job to decide what constitutes a two parter, not the director. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

How can they have less/equal authority when they endorse DWM, that automatically places them higher. Besides, since this argument is not source based it can't be used to disqualify the sources from use. Fan4Life (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Because while Doctor Who Magazine is our source, they in turn source the information to the production team and it is that authority we are considering. Who will be in a better position to know what is a one parter and what is a two parter. Is it the production team or the team running a tie in website? Both are employees of the BBC, but for one it is part (admittedly a very small part) of their job to decide on such matters and the other to market the show. As a result of that, it was decided by consensus of the editors here that this is what was we would go with. Has anything happened to question this stance? That is what I would like to know. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Fan4Life, every time you say X really means Y, that is the definition of interpretation, as a chorus of editors have repeated to you for the better part of a year. Latest example: "They endorse DWM, that automatically places them higher." Who do you understand by "they/them" in that sentence? Implicitly (i.e., not said, but understood to be present by you and you alone), it's an authoritative, monolithic BBC- or Moffat-sanctioned final authority which you are invoking. The reason no-one else "understands" this is: they do not share one of your core assumptions stated earlier, namely, "nothing happens without his [their] approval", which is demonstrably false (see arguments above). A single web page, video, article, etc., is not actually representative of another part or the whole of the BBC production team, or for that matter the showrunner: believing that requires interpretation (a faith-based one at that, as no evidence can ever be presented for such godlike powers by human beings in the real world). Nor can it easily invalidate what he's already said, or retroactively make him say what he has not said. Neither the BBC nor its website nor one of its magazines is a monolithic entity speaking with a single voice or from a single point of view--certainly not on this subject, at any rate. Indeed, we've had source after source proving this. No-one controls every aspect of everything related to the show or what anyone says, thinks, does, or writes, and by the same token, neither does anything anyone else says or will say override the writer/showrunner. What Dresken said stands: one day, we hope, there will be a 300th story and it will be celebrated--perhaps a little more so by editors on this talk page.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this argument is pointless, I am no closer to gaining consensus than when I started. I think since their are so many conflicting sources, they clearly are not officially designated a two-parter. Also, they were produced separately, two-parters are always produced together. As well as this, their is no TBC, all officially designated two-parters in Series 9 had a TBC, plus it is ludicrous to count two episodes that don't have a TBC (HS and HB) as a two-parter but count two episodes with a TBC (TGWD and TWWL) as standalones. I agree that they are standalones. Fan4Life (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Lede

Has anyone else noticed that the lede says the series concluded with "Hell Bent" but then goes on to include "The Husbands of River Song" in the blocks? I seem to recall there was a lengthy discussion on where "Husbands" belonged, and that we've agreed that "Husbands" is part of S9, shouldn't the lede say that's when it ends (perhaps with a brief mention of the gap), with its date rather than that of "Hell Bent"? Sorry if I've missed something that everyone else is aware of already. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The agreement was that it's not part of Series 9, but that it is part of the supplemental episodes included in the Series 9 boxset, which is why they have information listed (and are marked as such in this article in different methods) - as they remain supplemental to the series. Dresken (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah that explains it. I only hovered over that discussion, I must have assumed it was decided to be part of S9 because of the inclusion in the blocks. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Complete change of subject - wording above episodes section

Can I jest point out that the wording above the table IS actually inaccurate. It states "For the first time since the programme returned in 2005, half of the episodes are grouped into multi-part stories" - but series 3 had more(7 out of 13 episodes, so greater than half) 2.223.172.229 (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Good pick up - series six also matched the actual count of episodes - I have change wording of section. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)