Talk:Doctor Who specials (2008–2010)

The moving of Doctor Who (2008-10 specials)

I am just curious into finding out why that this page along with the Discussion/Talk page was moved to a newer page. What was wrong with the previous page? Docwhoaza93 (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

it was to change the dash (-) to a hyphen (–) Etron81 (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

One might argue that "2009 specials" is the common name here, despite not being technically accurate. I know that's what I've always called them, and would bet most other people do too. --DocNox (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Steven Moffat in writers list for End of Time: Part 2

I've removed Steven Moffat's name from the writers column for End of Time: Part 2. This is mainly because it misrepresents the writing of the episode and implies both writers wrote significant portions to the episode. I feel it is something that is appropriately covered in the article itself. I'm fine with The Fires of Pompeii (Series 4) and Impossible Planet/Satan Pit (series 2) to have the uncredited writer because they contributed heavily to the episode. I don't think it would be appropriate to add Steven Moffat's name to The God Complex & Closing Time (both Series 6) just because he wrote the final scenes of those episodes. If you disagree, please discuss.  The Windler talk  11:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The End of Time

I noticed that The End of Time takes up two rows in the episode summary box. While this is understandable, as it is a two episode story, I find it odd. Unlike all of the other multi episode stories made since the show's revival in 2005, this one has only one overall title as opposed to each episode having its own title. As such, this story in particular is treated more like a classic serial on Wikipedia; the title is italicised instead of put in quotation marks, and it has only one article for the story as a whole as opposed to one for each episode. However, the summary box for each classic season has only one row for each story instead of one for each episode of each story. Because of this, I think it would be a good idea to condense the two rows in the episode summary box dedicated to The End of Time into one, for consistency. — The Mighty Trought (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Colour contrast problems

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Fourteenth Doctor references

Hi guys The reason why I keep deleting the references is due to the fact that no other Doctor Who series page has references in their main bios. Just thought I'd throw this out in the open. JackWhovian (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials)

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No concerns raised. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Various maintens tags have been placed dating back to May 2020. I plan on fixing them myself but I wanted to see if anyother issues had arrised since then. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant An entire reassessment based solely on two maintenance tags is both troubling and concerning. If they are fixed, which you've noted you could do yourself, do you intend to close this reassessment? Why could this not have simply been a discussion on the specials' relevant talk page? -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Because the templates have been there since 2020 and 2021 and there has been 189 revisions in the five years since it reached GA adding an additonal 11,534 bytes to the page so I think its fairly likely that an additional problem would be noticed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't explain the need for a reassessment instead of just a regular talk page discussion. Are there actually any other issues? -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant Given that the two {{citation needed}} templates have been repaired, do you intend to now close this reassessment, given the lack of any other issues you've raised? -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant You seem to have forgotten about this. Any further updates? -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I am waiting for a review Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant Do you agree that there is no longer a need for this reassessment? On what grounds of WP:GAR was it opened? Which of the six good article criteria do you believe this article no longer follows? -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:56, 8 January 2024 (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.

Doctor Who Entries are a Confusing Mess

All the modern Doctor Who entries beginning in 2005 should be on one page and list all episodes, specials, shorts, etc. chronologically and, within the list, noted as part of a series, special, etc. This entry on the specials highlights this problem since there are a lot of "specials" that relate to a series, or the time of year (e.g. Christmas) so the reader trying to track them has a very difficult time following the Wikipedia scheme. 108.51.114.180 (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

These episodes are official televised television episodes - all of these can be found, in aired order, at List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present). Non-televised episodes are included elsewhere; we don't need one single list of all "canon" material. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)