Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Series 7 - Marcus Wilson is returning as producer

Marcus Wilson returns as producer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/news/bulletin_120305_01/The_New_Series 79.228.41.8 (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2012

Copyvio from news source removed, summerized below:

• Episode Two Cast: Mark Williams, Rupert Graves and David Bradley
• Episode Three Cast: Ben Browder, Adrian Scarborough, Dominic Kemp and Rob Cavezos, a Wild West adventure, being filmed in Spain now.

Ref: http://www.sfx.co.uk/2012/03/13/doctor-who-series-7-news-accumulator/

81.225.33.101 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but please do not copy text from websites onto Wikipedia.

As far as an episode table goes, that would give us this:

No	Title	Code	Episodes	Writer	Director	Original airdate
225				Stephen Moffat	Nick Hurran
226				Chris Chibnall	Saul Metzstein
227				Toby Whithouse	Saul Metzstein

However as we are six months to transmission, how do we know that these episodes are not going to be moved to the later in the series? I therefore think it's too early for a table. Edgepedia (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added the info about the currently planned third episode. Thanks again for the information. Edgepedia (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2012

New information on series 7 episodes 1-6 (as of 2012-04-29)

http://www.cultbox.co.uk/features/guides/1954-doctor-who-series-7-news-summary

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2012/04/23/doctor-who-series-7-news-accumulator/

81.225.39.32 (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out what we haven't already got in the article that isn't rumour. Edgepedia (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestion that "List of Doctor Who Serials by Setting" be merged into this article

I think that would make this article too long and potentially confusing. It's already long enough - not that can be made any shorter - and is very clear. It would be a shame to muck it up.

76.126.3.38 (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong agree with the above comment - both are long articles, and the combined article would be far too long and unwieldy. Should not be merged. The merge proposal is dated December 2011 - maybe time to drop it? 86.7.30.217 (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 April 2012

Not an earth-shattering change, but someone might do the following:

In paragraph 2, add link to Wikipedia page on "Cutaway_(filmmaking)" when referring to the cutaway "Mission to the Unknown", by replacing

cutaway

by

[[Cutaway_(filmmaking)|cutaway]]

Thanks 86.7.30.217 (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Edgepedia (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Series not seasons

Dr Who is a British tv series. So why is it 'Season 1' etc rather than 'Series 1' etc? In the UK we says series, not season. 86.133.53.163 (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ above. Also these previous discussions.

• Talk:List_of_Doctor_Who_serials/Archive 10#Season vs. Series
• Talk:List_of_Doctor_Who_serials/Archive 8#When_did_this_change_to_season.3F
• Talk:List_of_Doctor_Who_serials/Archive 6#Season.2Fseries
• Talk:List_of_Doctor_Who_serials/Archive 3#Series..Talk:List of Doctor Who serials/Archive 3#Series..
• Talk:List of Doctor Who serials/Archive 1#Series vs. Season

MarnetteD | Talk 21:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Series 8

The BBC is speaking about a series 8, I suggest we add a place holder for it :

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.53.209 (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I may be missing something, but I see nothing from the BBC in that link. The source is predicting there will be a series 8 in 2013, that's not a reliable source. Edgepedia (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 June 2012

Title on the first episode of seventh season revealed! (S07E01)

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2012/06/25/doctor-who-series-7-news-accumulator/

http://news.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/doctor-who-asylum-of-the-daleks/

81.225.33.128 (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

better source here: https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/Online/default.asp?doWork::WScontent::loadArticle=Load&BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::article_id=6904CA0E-6ECB-41E2-9C20-D9F3962F8EE5&BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::context_id=4B870D5D-7E91-497C-96ED-7A869E315B17

I'd add it myself, but I don't have time at the moment - maybe I'll time later if no-one gets to it first Etron81 (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's already mentioned, with digital spy being cited. DonQuixote (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

the title of the season 7 premiere is "asylum of the daleks" can someone please add it, i'd do it myself but I can't edit this page for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexjones50 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 June 2012

S07E01 The Asylum of the Daleks will be aired on this year's MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival, on Saturday the 25th of August. http://www.mgeitf.co.uk/home/MGEITF/programme/2012-programme.aspx http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/09/charlie-brooker-steven-moffat-edinburgh?INTCMP=SRCH

S07E06 will be the christmas special, thus airing on the 25th of December. http://blogtorwho.blogspot.se/2012/01/series-one-on-watch.html http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Series_7_%28Doctor_Who%29 http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctor-who/news/a382427/steven-moffat-on-doctor-who-sherlock-and-his-bafta-special-award.html http://www.sfx.co.uk/2012/06/25/doctor-who-series-7-news-accumulator/

81.225.33.128 (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Asylum of the Daleks" will be SHOWN at the Festival, not broadcast - this list has the original broadcast dates.

While it's most likely that the Christmas Special will be on Dec 25th as usual, but "Christmas" can refer to the entire Christmas Season (so it coud air on Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Christmas Eve, etc.) - See previous discussions regarding previous Christmas Specials Etron81 (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2012

Dame Diana Rigg and her daughter Rachael Stirling will play mother and daughter in an episode of doctor who series 7. the episode is provisionally titled “The Crimson Horror” and will the fourth episode in the second block.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/articles/Dame-Diana-Rigg-and-Rachael-Stirling-to-Star-in-New-Series

http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2012/07/dwn020712120008-dame-diana-rigg-and.html

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2012/07/02/doctor-who-series-7-diana-rigg-to-guest-star/

81.225.33.128 (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the spot! However the text at the top of the series 7 section needs to be trimmed signicantly now we have a Series 7 article, to match the intro the the other series. Doctor Who (series 7) has the information on the stars, not sure how significant or reliable provisonal article titles are. These don't get placed in the table. Edgepedia (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Are there references for air dates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.136.61 (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 July 2012

I'd like to add a summary table of the entire show("Series overview") like here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_(TV_series)#U.S._Nielsen_ratings_and_series_renewal It contains the airdates of all the premieres and finales of all the seasons and series of the show, the ratings of each premiere and finale and the avarage viewers in millions for each season/series. I've taken all the data about the viewership from the different articles about the seasons/series, so I assume they are reliable, since they have been approved. I think this would be useful for people who want that kind of information summarized more conveniently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterflame96 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I say, if you are going to add a table into this article (I've seen it), you should use the British date format. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 10:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who Series 7

The new doctor who series (series 7) starts on the 25th of August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.88.177 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you let us know how you know this? Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how IP knows, but we can conclude with some certainty that that is the case because Merlin's premiere has been confirmed for 29 September,[1] five weeks later. So Asylum airs 25 Aug, ep 2 on 1 Sep, ep 3 on 8 Sep, ep 4 on 15 Sep and ep 5 on 22 Sep, with Merlin starting the next week (and ending 13 weeks later on 22 Dec). It's elementary, my dear Watson. DBD 13:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's still guessing. Ratemonth (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

And your source has it 'on good authority' - i.e. is not reliable. Edgepedia (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I know because it says on the Doctor Who website— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.88.177‎ (talk)

Which website? I've looked at Radio Times and the BBC and have found no date. Edgepedia (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I found it on this one http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.42.80 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting how you said that on the day that it became clear it would NOT be the 25th. U-Mos (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well i must have found it before they changed the airing date — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.155.247 (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't. The 25th was never any more than an educated guess. U-Mos (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I did see it somewhere and it was sorta an educated guess cause it said somting about showing a a festival in wales or something on the 25th and airing it later so i must've misunderstood and thought they were airing it later that date rather that later this year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.155.247 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Rename?

Wouldn't it make more sense for this page to be "List of Doctor Who episodes"?. Most of the new series episodes are not part of serials, yet are listed on a page with a title that doesn't apply to them, which seems counter to encyclopedia logic. All of the classic series serials were composed of episodes, so renaming the page would not make the title inaccurate for them. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. In answer to it I would say that, due to the 26 years of the Classic series on this page, there are many more serials here than episodes. In the new series there are at least three two part stories per season and, though they have separate titles (except for The End of Time) that still classifies them as serials. I would think that the only way to act on your suggestion would be to split the new series off to its own article but even that would have to acknowledge that there are still some serials taking p[lace within each production block. Of course, this is just one editors opinion and other input is welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 14:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, like I said, serials are made of episodes, so the name "episodes" would accurately cover all the stories listed here, including the old series, while "serials" isn't accurately covering them all. It would not be necessary to change the template used to list them or any other page content. The episodes in each serial are already noted, so the name "List of Doctor Who episodes" is an accurate reflection of the page as it already is. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I suggested this myself a few years back on the same rationale. I would support if you put in a move request (and might be worth doing to see if consensus has altered). U-Mos (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This article still has 23 years of listings for the Classic series that are only under the serial title. Even the listings for the first three years link to the the overall serial title not to individual episodes. Articles with "episode" in the title usually have lists or tables with links to articles for the individual episodes and that is just not the case for the bulk of this article. Now another suggestion and one that would help with this articles size is to split the Classic series from the new one and title the new one "episodes". I think that the "Other stories" section could also have its own article. Before putting in a move request I would suggest getting more input from the Dr Who wikiproject by providing a link to this discussion on the talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 17:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"Articles with 'episode' in the title usually have lists or tables with links to articles for the individual episodes." I don't think the title "episodes" necessitates that at all. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes to show but two. Whereas the 26 years of the Classic series have links to articles about multi episode serials (with two exceptions.) So "lists of serials" is the correct title for those. That is why the suggestions to split off the new series into its own article allows both pages to have titles that represent what is on them. MarnetteD | Talk 18:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I said I don't think it necessitates that. I see no contradiction in having links to articles about serials in an article named "list of episodes" that covers both serialized and episodic stories. Whereas splitting this article would be cumbersome. What people want when they go searching is an article about all Doctor Who television stories. Hey, what about "List of Doctor Who television stories"? -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't have all of the Star Trek series on one page. It wouldn't be at all cumbersome to split and a hatnote at the top would be far easier to find the new series then to scroll multiple times to get to the news series the way one has to do now. Since each new season winds up needing numerous reverts and/or page protection to do rumors being added to the article a split would also have the advantage of getting the Classic series section away from that craziness. MarnetteD | Talk 21:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the Star Trek series aren't one big series, Doctor Who is. You don't need to scroll the page to get to the new series either, just click on Ninth Doctor on the Contents sidebar at the top of the page. I think "List of Doctor Who television stories" is the best all-inclusive name for the page. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who Series 7

The new doctor who series (series 7) starts on the 25th of August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.88.177 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you let us know how you know this? Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how IP knows, but we can conclude with some certainty that that is the case because Merlin's premiere has been confirmed for 29 September,[2] five weeks later. So Asylum airs 25 Aug, ep 2 on 1 Sep, ep 3 on 8 Sep, ep 4 on 15 Sep and ep 5 on 22 Sep, with Merlin starting the next week (and ending 13 weeks later on 22 Dec). It's elementary, my dear Watson. DBD 13:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's still guessing. Ratemonth (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

And your source has it 'on good authority' - i.e. is not reliable. Edgepedia (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I know because it says on the Doctor Who website— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.88.177‎ (talk)

Which website? I've looked at Radio Times and the BBC and have found no date. Edgepedia (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I found it on this one http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.42.80 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting how you said that on the day that it became clear it would NOT be the 25th. U-Mos (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well i must have found it before they changed the airing date — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.155.247 (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't. The 25th was never any more than an educated guess. U-Mos (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I did see it somewhere and it was sorta an educated guess cause it said somting about showing a a festival in wales or something on the 25th and airing it later so i must've misunderstood and thought they were airing it later that date rather that later this year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.155.247 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Rename?

Wouldn't it make more sense for this page to be "List of Doctor Who episodes"?. Most of the new series episodes are not part of serials, yet are listed on a page with a title that doesn't apply to them, which seems counter to encyclopedia logic. All of the classic series serials were composed of episodes, so renaming the page would not make the title inaccurate for them. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. In answer to it I would say that, due to the 26 years of the Classic series on this page, there are many more serials here than episodes. In the new series there are at least three two part stories per season and, though they have separate titles (except for The End of Time) that still classifies them as serials. I would think that the only way to act on your suggestion would be to split the new series off to its own article but even that would have to acknowledge that there are still some serials taking p[lace within each production block. Of course, this is just one editors opinion and other input is welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 14:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, like I said, serials are made of episodes, so the name "episodes" would accurately cover all the stories listed here, including the old series, while "serials" isn't accurately covering them all. It would not be necessary to change the template used to list them or any other page content. The episodes in each serial are already noted, so the name "List of Doctor Who episodes" is an accurate reflection of the page as it already is. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I suggested this myself a few years back on the same rationale. I would support if you put in a move request (and might be worth doing to see if consensus has altered). U-Mos (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This article still has 23 years of listings for the Classic series that are only under the serial title. Even the listings for the first three years link to the the overall serial title not to individual episodes. Articles with "episode" in the title usually have lists or tables with links to articles for the individual episodes and that is just not the case for the bulk of this article. Now another suggestion and one that would help with this articles size is to split the Classic series from the new one and title the new one "episodes". I think that the "Other stories" section could also have its own article. Before putting in a move request I would suggest getting more input from the Dr Who wikiproject by providing a link to this discussion on the talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 17:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"Articles with 'episode' in the title usually have lists or tables with links to articles for the individual episodes." I don't think the title "episodes" necessitates that at all. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes to show but two. Whereas the 26 years of the Classic series have links to articles about multi episode serials (with two exceptions.) So "lists of serials" is the correct title for those. That is why the suggestions to split off the new series into its own article allows both pages to have titles that represent what is on them. MarnetteD | Talk 18:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I said I don't think it necessitates that. I see no contradiction in having links to articles about serials in an article named "list of episodes" that covers both serialized and episodic stories. Whereas splitting this article would be cumbersome. What people want when they go searching is an article about all Doctor Who television stories. Hey, what about "List of Doctor Who television stories"? -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't have all of the Star Trek series on one page. It wouldn't be at all cumbersome to split and a hatnote at the top would be far easier to find the new series then to scroll multiple times to get to the news series the way one has to do now. Since each new season winds up needing numerous reverts and/or page protection to do rumors being added to the article a split would also have the advantage of getting the Classic series section away from that craziness. MarnetteD | Talk 21:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the Star Trek series aren't one big series, Doctor Who is. You don't need to scroll the page to get to the new series either, just click on Ninth Doctor on the Contents sidebar at the top of the page. I think "List of Doctor Who television stories" is the best all-inclusive name for the page. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Two special episodes missing from serials list

Both aired before season 6:

Rewind special, "Trust Your Doctor" Aired April 23, 2011 and Behind-the-scenes special, "Doctor Who in America" Aired April 30, 2011

--199.126.140.75 (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

These are both documentaries and adn such do not belong on this list. Etron81 (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Other Stories - TV Broadcasts vs Specials

How is it decided, if a broadcast is listed in the "Other Stories - TV Broadcasts" or "Specials" section of a Series.

Examples:

"Children in Need 2011": Other Stories - TV Broadcast / "Time Crash" Children in Need: Specials 2007

"Music of the Spheres: Other Stories - TV Broadcast / "Space/Time": Specials 2010-11

Could this be unified somehow? (158.64.4.15 (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC))

What's with the "series"?

Is it Wikipedia policy to suddenly start using this quaint notion of calling a season for "a series"? And if so why isn't it consistent. (Also what's with the starting over in the recount, the current season is the 33th, since there was no reboot involved)--EnBruger (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the first question is in the archives for this page several times. There are numerous sources that refer to the "Classic" episodes by season. The "New" series has been referred to by the term series from the beginning and the powers that be including the BBC and RTD chose to begin the numbering of those series at one. Remember the show was cancelled and off the air for 16 years so the format that had existed was no longer the TV norm. All you have to do is look at all the reliable sources - Radio Times listings, Dr Who monthly, the DVD covers, etc to see that they did not continue the numbering from the "Classic" series. I would like to suggest to other regular editors of this page that we create and label a special archive page for these conversations like we did with archive 3 at the Talk:Oscar Wilde talk page so that we can just point those that have these questions there rather than have to give the same answers over and over. MarnetteD | Talk 23:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, and possibly elsewhere, what us Americans think of as a season, Brits currently call that a "series". Back when the original DW was around, they were called seasons. Hence why the older stuff is labeled "season" and the newer rendition is "series". And it may be the 33RD season overall, but with the new times and new label, comes a new number. -PUNKMINKIS (TALK) 05:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I added a FAQ to answer this question to this page in December 2011, directing people here. Unfortunately, the original poster seems to have missed it. Edgepedia (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Edge. I missed that so apologies. This question will always come up for new editors, but , oof dah, we have covered it so many times. MarnetteD | Talk 05:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How about putting a notice box at the top of the talk pages, or possible set it up to show when one edits an article? If you go here, for example, you will see a permanent notice box regarding the use of tenses on The Sarah Jane Adventures articles. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

AGMTGW/Hitler one story?

This is the only place where I have ever seen "A Good Man Goes to War" and "Let's Kill Hitler" listed as a single story. They are connected, have no doubt, but they have never been promoted as the same story. Is there a source to verify that the BBC officially considers the two episodes a two-part story? If they don't this might run afoul of WP:NOR. I would have marked it with {{cite}} but the article's locked. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The reference you're looking for is '"News Flash!: Matt's Back!". Doctor Who Magazine (Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent: Panini Comics) (428): 5. 15 Dec 2010.' Edgepedia (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's in the article currently ref 17, in the '2 Episodes' column. Edgepedia (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The DWM article cited was written long before LKH had even been filmed, let alone series six's final structure been decided upon by the BBC, so to use this tiny news item as the only piece of evidence for it being a two-parter is very misguided. If you look at later DWM's - such as the episode previews and reviews, and particulalry their dedicated Series Six Companion magazine - you'll see they now regard each as two separate stories. Plus, the Radio Times promoted and billed AGMGTW and LKH as separate stories (i.e. no part 1 of 2, part 2 of 2). It's very strange that you persist to maintain this when no one else does. Jpreddle (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, then feel free to cite the Series Six Companion Special, etc., and change it accordingly. DonQuixote (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's locked; it won't let me. Can someone else make the changes, please. Jpreddle (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please list the works that you are citing here and we'll take it to the article proper. Use template:citation, template:cite journal, etc. However, be aware that omissions (like the above Radio Times example) doesn't mean anything considering the currently cited work. DonQuixote (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's full 'title' and credit is: Pixley, Andrew (December 2011). "Doctor Who Magazine Special Edition #30 - The Doctor Who Companion The Eleventh Doctor Volume Four" (Tunbridge Wells, Kent: Panini Publishing Ltd, December 2011 (cover date 21 March 2012), ISSN 0963-1275 Jpreddle (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll try to obtain a copy and verify it personally before making such a major change myself. Other editors might be a little more expedient. DonQuixote (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to a scan of the contents page of the magazine: IMAGE Jpreddle (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll announce this on the project page and then get to work on it as soon as possible (got a class to teach in a few minutes). DonQuixote (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Series Overview

In the series overview, the Christmas Specials are counted to the number of episodes of the series (e.g Series 6 = 14 Episodes). But for the Ended Date, the Christmas Specials are not taken into consideration.

This is a little confusing.

I see two options: Either add the Date of the Christmas Special to the Ended Date (1 October 2011 + 25. December 2011). Or add a new line for the special (Specials 2011).

Thanks. (158.64.4.15 (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC))

The Great Detective

Should today's Children in Need minisode be added to this page? I know other prequels are not included, but those generally didn't have their own title like this one does and were released online as opposed to "The Great Detective" being broadcast as part of Children in Need.

If we include it, should i go under the 2011/12 specials section? Or somehow worked into the Series 7 table?

Etron81 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It should probably be treated like the other two CiN mini-episodes. DonQuixote (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree - I've been bold and added it to the 2011/12 specials table Etron81 (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS

Can we stop deleting the title, please? It was confirmed by Stephen Thompson, the writer of the episode, to be the official title in Doctor Who Magazine issue 454. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesWelwyn (talk • contribs) 11:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

^ I can also vouch for this. See this article: http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/thompson-on-journey-to-the-centre-of-the-tardis-41771.htm 86.141.92.174 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That second source just repeats DWM, so it's redundant. Also, there's no rush to list the titles as we have until the very day it airs before we need to do anything. DonQuixote (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

People come to this site for information; as it's been confirmed, I suggest we add it now. JamesWelwyn (talk • contribs) 11:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Big error in Series 7

There are only 14 episodes announced for Series 7 including the Christmas Special, not 15. Where did 15 come from? Try to find any source from the BBC or DWM that says 15 (or did someone decide to upgrade Pond Life?) 70.72.211.35 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There are 15 episodes: the 2011 xmas episode (the doctor, the widow and the wardrobe), series 7 part 1 (5 episodes), 2012 xmas episode (the snowmen), and series 7 part 2 (8 episodes). 1 + 5 + 1 + 8 = 15 Frogkermit (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. Where are we saying there are 15 episodes in series 7? This article is listing 14. Edgepedia (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's quite simple. If you look on the series 7 article it will show you the 15. It's the standard 13 episode run, plus the two xmas specials (the doctor, the widow, and the wardrobe and the snowmen). So that's the standard run of 13 episodes, plus 2 xmas specials, which makes 15 episodes in total. As this series is split over 2 years, that means it gets the xmas special it would normally have at the start (the doctor, the widow and the wardrobe), but also the snowmen, which airs in the middle of the series. Normally, if the series had all aired in one year, then the snowmen would have become part of the next series, but as it is split over 2 years, it is part of series 7, making 15 episodes in total. 1 + 13 + 1 = 15. Simple. Frogkermit (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

13 episodes + 2 xmas specials = 15 episodes Frogkermit (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't series 7 be edited then as it currently states that the series started in late 2012, yet if we include 'The Doctor, The Widow and The Wardrobe' then it would be December 2011. Proposed change: Series 7 started with an xmas episode in December 2011, with the main episodical series starting in late 2012. G.Light (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Then we would have to edit every single series of New Who bar series 1 and 5 as they all start with an xmas special. Frogkermit (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose for the start date for each series we could have the start date, then have (+25th December 20??) as well Frogkermit (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I assume this is in regard to the Series Overview at the to pof the article - Shoudl the Christmas specials be enumerated in this at all? (I don't know what the MOS for these kinds of things is) - I do notice that the Five Doctors doesn't seem to be included in the total for Season 20 - We could do something like this:

Doctor	Season/Series	Airday	Episodes	Premiered		Ended		Viewers (in millions)
				Date	Premiere viewers (in millions)	Date	Finale viewers (in millions)
Fifth Doctor	Season 19	Monday & Tuesday	26	4 January 1982	9.6	30 March 1982	8.9	9.30
	Season 20	Tuesday & Wednesday	23	4 January 1983	7.2	16 March 1983 (series) 23 November 1983 (special)	7.55	7.00
	Season 21	Thursday & Friday	24	5 January 1984	7.25	30 March 1984	7.1	8.37
Ninth Doctor	Series 1	Saturday	13	26 March 2005	10.81	17 June 2005	6.91	7.31
Tenth Doctor	Series 2		14	25 December 2005 (special) 15 April 2006 (series)	8.62	8 July 2006	8.22	7.64
	Series 3		14	25 December 2006 (special) 31 March 2007 (series)	8.71	30 June 2007	8.61	7.54
	Series 4		14	25 December 2007 (special) 5 April 2008 (series)	9.14	5 July 2008	10.57	8.04
	2008–10 Specials	Thursday (1) Saturday (2, 4–5) Sunday (3)	5	25 December 2008	13.10	1 January 2010	12.27	11.45
Eleventh Doctor	Series 5	Saturday	13	3 April 2010	10.085	26 June 2010	6.696	7.73
	Series 6		14	25 December 2010 (special) 23 April 2011 (series)	8.86	1 October 2011	7.67	7.51
	Series 7		15	25 December 2011 (special) 1 September 2012 (series)	8.33	2013	—	—

Etron81 (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i think your proposal for the changes to the overall table, is a good idea, and i suggest you edit it like this, but be sure to include the other doctors in it. I can't see many editors having a problem with including these dates in. Frogkermit (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, i've editied the table in the main article now myself to look like this, and it now includes special airdates Frogkermit (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

And created a problem: December 25 is not always the same day as the series' broadcast day. If you plan to add the specials the broadcast day column will have to go. --Drmargi (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Then we just add another day in the broadcat day column, like is used for the 2008-10 specials Frogkermit (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are you putting the Christmas 2011 Special in series 7? Edgepedia (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it is part of series 7, you just need to look at the series7 article to find that out. It is in series 7 the same way that the christmas carol is part of series 6 Frogkermit (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Another option is to include the specials in their own rows, which includes The Five Doctors as well as the Xmas specials. DonQuixote (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2012

I have some information on two of the upcoming episodes in Series 7, in Doctor Who. Wether or not the information is credible, I assume it up to you to decide. Though, the information I got is from IMBd (http://www.imdb.com).

Please add this information to the list of Series 7 episodes.

Episode 10 in Series 7 (2013) is named "The Crimson Horror". Written by Mark Gatiss and directed by Saul Metzstein.

Episode 13 in Series 7 (2013) is named "The Last Cyberman". Written by Neil Gaiman and directed by Stephen Woolfenden.

Sources:

S07E10 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2204480/

S07E13 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2267338/

- Simon Pettersen Notorious96 (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Notorious96, as the content on imdb.com is user-submitted it is not generally reliable. (This includes biographies, which cannot be directly edited.) Wikipedia requires reliable sources. (see WP:IMDB and WP:RS). Edgepedia (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Vastra Investigates "Minisode"

'Vastra Investigates' is now available in the UK via the red button service. Would this be eligible for this article in the same way as 'The Great Detective' or 'Attack of the Graske'?

I would say so as this list also includes Pond Life which was an online/Red Button broadcast as well Etron81 (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to be WP:BOLD and add it Etron81 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed info on previous episode listing?

I recently gave some information on the two episodes in Series 7 that had a title revealed. I now have another source on those episodes, and also a tiny change:

The Grimson Horror: http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/series-7-filming-welcome-to-sweetville-35461.htm

The Last Cyberman: http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/gaiman-on-making-cybermen-scary-again-41583.htm

Episode 13 is "The Last Cyberman", by Neil Gaiman. Title may change later on, though.

But, episode 9 is the one titled "The Grimson Horror" (written by Mark Gatiss), not episode 10 as I previously thought.

Using these sources you might even get enough info for stand-alone articles on the episodes. Though, probably just as big as "Journey To The Center Of The Tardis".

Hope this is enough, thanks anyways :)

- Simon Pettersen Notorious96 (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No, we need reliable sources. Ratemonth (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Phantom of the Hex

Hi! Zoopedia Here. So recently there was an "editing war" that was started. I want to say that I believe that the Phantom of the Hex is just as unconfirmed as the other episodes (other than Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS) being that it was an actor that called it that and being that it has not been confirmed by the production team at the BBC I believe that it is unfit to have it posted as an episode, especially since another actor in the episode called it Hider in the House. I apologize for getting slightly angry earlier, but in reality either the episodes I posted before should be up with Phantom of the Hex, or Phantom of the Hex should not be up. This is how I see it but I would love to hear other peoples' points of view! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoopedia (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No. There is a reliable source for Phantom of the Hex, there is not for the episodes you wanted to list. Please stop wasting time. Ratemonth (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 December 2012

Per IMDB ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2267338/ ) The following is an upcoming episode:

7.13 - The Last Cyberman Writer: Neil Gaiman Director: Stephen Woolfenden

Please find a reliable source. IMDB is not reliable. Ratemonth (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

IMDB is the predominant site for the entertainment industry, and other than reader-submitted content (such as reviews) and forums, content is generally as reliable as any other source. Not just anybody can add base content, such as media events, case, and crew, such as future Dr. Who episodes, along with their writers and directors. What other source is more reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.120.149 (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually - anyone CAN add a source. Several episodes have had "The Rani" credited on IMDB before the episode aired. She has yet to appear in any of them. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus is to split into serials and episodes. No move necessary --regentspark (comment) 03:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials → List of Doctor Who episodes – This has been discussed before, but it's been almost five years. I primarily request this move based on WP:CRITERIA. Recognizability? Serial has several prominent meanings; to a librarian like me, it usually means a periodical. Naturalness? Considering modern Doctor Who episodes aren't serials, the proposed title is one that "readers are likely to look for or search with." Precision? In a previous discussion, an editor objected to this move because not all episodes (i.e. of the serials) are listed. But there are many episodes that aren't part of a serial (admittedly there are other topics that confuse the naming issue, such as video games, but they might be best split off). Conciseness? In a previous discussion, an editor objected to this move because it would result in a longer title, but I don't think any readers will be hurt by the extra character. Consistency? Other episode lists are overwhelmingly named "List of Foo episodes." "Doctor Who episodes" beats "Doctor Who serials" in Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books, though I concede WP:GHITS aren't the best metric here. Finally, it appears from current usage that "Doctor Who serials" refers primarily to the pre-reboot episodes, i.e. those that were actual serials. --Relisted Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC) --BDD (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Split the new Doctor Who should be in a list of episodes, the old Doctor Who in a list of serials, since that's how the new show works, with mostly standalone episodes, while the old show did not. And per the BBC itself (see it's DVDs at Amazon.co.uk or any other Amazon), season/series numbering restarted with the new production run. The treatment of the new show as part of the old show is WP:INUNIVERSE fandom, and not objective; objective sources treat the show as the new Doctor Who. Even the BBC's advertisments said "new Doctor Who". For a comparison see the Dallas soap opera where new production is sequestered into a separate article, even though it is a direct continuation just like Doctor Who is. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Split There have been more recent discussions about this than five years ago in cluding one last August. There were only a handful of stand alone episodes in the classic series so it would be an error to label them as such. The only question I can see is which article the Eighth Drs TV film should go in. MarnetteD | Talk 05:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Those unclear as to the distinction between "series", "season", "serial", "episode" etc. might like to see WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology and "reboot" is what you do to a non-functioning computer. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The BBC lists all episodes of Doctor Who together, regardless of whether they are contained in a "season" or "series". Tphi (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment What about "List of Doctor Who serials and episodes"? Glimmer721 ^talk 01:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment the article is very long, so should be split anyways, and at the rate of episodes being added with the new production, the split between the old serials (one list entry with multiple episodes) and new episodes (one list entry with one episode) would be best. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• This discussion has been reopened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Splitting episode list? Edgepedia (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Episode titles (unreliable source tag)

There is some question as to whether the sources for these two names are good enough. I have started discussion at Talk:Doctor Who (series 7)#Phantom of the Hex and there is ongoing discussion at Talk:Doctor Who (series 7)#What's up?. Edgepedia (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Goslin should be Ryan Gosling

Also, the name should be linked.Stephenegriffin (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Y You're right; I've made those changes. In the future, feel free to make such changes yourself. If you're not able, using the {{edit semi-protected}} and {{edit protected}} tags will help ensure prompt attention. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Bells of Saint John

Some of you may remember me from a couple of months ago when I tried editing this page and tried arguing that the title for the series 7 episode was not phantom of the hex and was not confirmed. I argued that BBC's anglophenia blog was not a reliable source of information and that as Wikipedia, we should not allow it to be up. A lot of people on this website said that it was "confirmed" and now as you all know, the name of the opener is in fact The Bells of Saint John as I said before. This means that the title Phantom of the Hex was not confirmed for either the title or as the Series 7 opener. Due to some people standing behind their "confirmed source" got quite upset with me, and I felt offended by the stubbornness. So I would like to ask for an apology. Furthermore, I would like to suggest that we no longer use the anglophenia blog as a source as it was a worse source than doctorwhotv.co.uk, which has so far gotten it all correct. Zoopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoopedia (talk • contribs) 02:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No, don't be silly. We had a source. It was wrong. That's too bad. But you didn't have a source. You don't get an apology. Ratemonth (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that I shouldn't have posted those things because they were not confirmed, and I acknowledged this before, but I did not know that you weren't to say that it was not confirmed and that it should not be put up at all. But yet, when you tried to say that the source was reliable, which evidently it was not, I tried saying it was unreliable as it came from the anglophenia page, and you discredited that, and now this proves that you were wrong, and I do not believe that we should use the bbcamerica anglophenia blog page as a source. If it were in fact reliable, it would not have gotten information wrong. Therefore, that article was not put out by the producers of Doctor Who, which I tried to say before. You are right that I did not have a reliable source, but neither did you, so that is what I would like an apology for. Your stubbornness to see that your source was just as unreliable as mine, and yet you disregarded, which I found to be very unprofessional. I was hurt that you would not even consider my argument, which is now proven to be correct, that bbcamerica anglophenia blog is not a reliable source, so I am still awaiting that apology, not for the source, but for the unfounded argument against me. (How do you sign a comment?) Zoopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoopedia (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Zoopedia, you're taking something personal that isn't; this was simply editorial judgement based on application of standing policy, nothing more. If you're waiting for an apology, you might find it faster to wait for Godot. Meanwhile, I posted the following in response to the discussion on the talk page for Series 7, addressing Zoopedia's erroneous characterization of Anglophenia, and am adding it here (italics added) as it's equally germane to this discussion:

Hold your horses! Let's take a step back; I think we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and are too trusting of Zoopedia's inaccurate characterization of what the Anglophenia blog is. It is not at all comparable to DoctorWhoTV, which is a fansite dealing in rumors and secondary information. Anglophenia is a feature on the official BBC America site, and is their self-described "British Culture" blog. It is not a "rumors website" -- that statement simply demonstrates one editor's lack of understanding of the blog's connection to the BBC America website, and consequently the BBC. The piece from Anglophenia that sourced Phantom of the Hex as the first new episode was principally a profile piece in Jessica Raine. We need to remember that errors get made, changes occur, writers are misinformed, and this circumstance far from makes the BBC American site or Anglophenia in particular unreliable. If we held every source to the one-error standard, we couldn't use 90% of the newspapers and magazines, and probably a comparable percentage of reputable websites we currently trust implicitly. Anglophenia has accurately sourced broadcast dates for a good many British programs in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.

Zoopedia, I'm not sure where you get your information about Anglophenia or what your grudge with them is, but your description of them as a "rumors" site is entirely wrong. As was noted above, the source was good, an error was made for reasons we can't know, we correct it and move on. Anglophenia continues to be a reliable source of information about Doctor Who, as it's proven in the past. --Drmargi (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It is clear from http://gordonandfrench.co.uk/artists-profile-stage.php?ArtistID=108 that "Phantom of the Hex" always referred to episode 3.10. However, is it worth adding when titles may already have changed, as may broadcast order? (The main significance of the BBCA & DWTV reporting was that Jessica Raine was in an episode. Radio Times says that besides starring in An Adventure..., the Call the Midwife star is in an ordinary episode with Dougray Scott. "A magical experience... all mind machines and strobe lighting.") --Cedders^tk 14:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Episode numbers may mean different things at different stages of production. Its possible this episode was shot early, and that's where the numbering came from. It's of no consequence now; the issue of the number is sorted out. My point is that BBCA was presumably misinformed by the BBC, and that resulted in the error, but should not render the site unreliable. --Drmargi (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2013

Delete the link to it:Episodi di Doctor Who (quarta stagione) at the end of the article.

The link interface should be used. Also, this is an article about a specific season, which correspond to the specific season in English, not this page.

Guillcote (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. — Edokter (talk) — 21:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Mind of Evil in colour?

Now that all episodes exist in colour, and are due to be shown at a BFI event (as well as an imminent DVD release), is it not time to remove the "all episodes exist in black and white", as has been done for "Ambassadors of Death" and "Planet of the Daleks"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.90.75 (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The new Doctor Who series premiered after a 15-year hiatus from episodic television, not 16. The old show ended in December 1989 but the new show did not premiere in December 2005, so it was only 15 years.--174.102.42.226 (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"The Last Cyberman is now called "Nightmare in Silver"

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctor-who/news/a468450/doctor-who-neil-gaimans-cybermen-episode-gets-new-title.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.235.253 (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Series 8, End of Matt Smith Tenure?

This article still reads that Matt Smith will reprise his role in Series 8, but the Sun has reported that he will leave at Christmas. article here I would request that this be edited to reflect that information.

It's generally accepted that The Sun here is not a reliable source regarding this sort of thing and, and the reading the piece as it attributes insiders or sources showing that this is gossip. The reference for the statement is the Radio Times article, and this reporting on Jenna-Louise not Matt Smith, and will adjust it to suit. Edgepedia (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

References

This is a featured list, but I have concern over a number of sources. Referring to this version

• No. 15. I'm assuming that this is referring to Davies, Russell T.; Cook, Benjamin (2010). Doctor Who The Writer's Tale: The Final Chapter. Random House Incorporated. ISBN 978-1-84607-861-3. Retrieved 30 March 2013., but the page numbers are needed.
• No. 37 needs more details and a page number
• No. 44 is a blog, and therefore probably unreliable
• Nos 7, 51 and 84 are marked as dead links

Can anyone help on the above. Meanwhile, I'll fix the raw urls that are being used. Edgepedia (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a go and of course, everything has changed. Referring to this version

• No. 15. I'm assuming that this is referring to Davies, Russell T.; Cook, Benjamin (2010). Doctor Who The Writer's Tale: The Final Chapter. Random House Incorporated. ISBN 978-1-84607-861-3. Retrieved 30 March 2013., but the page numbers are needed.
• Nos. 29 & 38 (DWM) More details and page numbers needed
• I found more dead links - the images that gave the episode titles (Nos. 31, 33, 35 & 37) are now dead
• No. 41 is just someone's Twitter account. We need the Tweet.
• No. 47 is now the blog, and therefore probably unreliable
• Nos 7, 54 and 87 are marked as dead links Edgepedia (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

David Tennant & Billie Piper returns for 50th anniversary show

Confirmed by BBC - "David Tennant and Billie Piper will appear in the 50th anniversary special of Doctor Who" The special is due to air on "23 November". Timanetor (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Added. Edgepedia (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"Viewers (in millions)"

The table in section "Series overview" contains the column "Viewers (in millions)". It can't be what it says (numbers don't add up), so it should be described better. --91.10.58.184 (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It works out to be the average amount of viewers over the whole of the Series.13thDoctor93 (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't explain here, fix the article. --91.10.58.184 (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There are 3 movies, not 1

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Who_and_the_Daleks for the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.164.96 (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the Snowmen a separate special or a part of series 7

DocNox brings up a good point that the official website lists Snowmen as a separate special. The only other source, after just a quick search, is http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/moffat-series-7-at-least-14-episodes-30181.htm, which is admittedly a little ambiguous. Food for thought. DonQuixote (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Series 7: Part 2 DVD box art also lists the 2012 Christmas special separately. It says it includes episodes 6-13, meaning "The Bells of Saint John" is episode 6, not "The Snowmen". -- DocNox (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources conflict: Radio Times is listing "Cold War" as 9/14, whereas the BBC is saying it's 3/8 of Series 7 Part 2. Edgepedia (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If there's a conflict should we not side with the BBC? I don't understand why we treat this special different from every other Christmas special the show has done when the BBC doesn't even do it. --DocNox (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Radio Times is also the BBC. DonQuixote (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Radio Times operate separately from BBC broadcasting. — Edokter (talk) — 13:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to add to this: Radio Times was sold off with other BBC Magazines to a separate privately-owned company, Immediate Media Company - so it is no longer an official BBC-owned publication Stephenb (Talk) 08:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Series 7 finale name announced

According to the new BBC Blog out, the name of the finale for S7 is "The Name of the Doctor". As the article is semi-protected, I cannot, myself add it in. If someone could do so, that would be appreciated. Thanks. 107.10.29.82 (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)  Done Edgepedia (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Episodes

Can we move this to episodes already? They're not really serials anymore, and every other TV show has 'episode s'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesWelwyn (talk • contribs) 17:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Is episode accurate? For the first 26 seasons they were serials and that hasn't changed has it? Edgepedia (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The last discussion (earlier this year) is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Splitting_episode_list?, and it would appear that there were objections to splitting or to rename this to episodes. I don't there's an easy answer.Edgepedia (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be one of those things that gets brought up a lot but nothing ever actually happens. "Serials" is clearly wrong at this point. "Serials and episodes" is the obvious compromise, but it's long and still not technically accurate with the TV movie in there. I believe a move to "episodes" really would be best for several reasons, but the main one being WP:UCN which states "the term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms." Is "episodes" the common name now regardless of it's accuracy? I would definitely say so. Even the BBC uses it in their official guide which also lists both the old and new shows together. --DocNox (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What about "television stories"? The 8th doctor movie was on tv. This would cover the tv movie, the classic serials (including the 2 standalone episodes), and the current standalone episodes, 2-part stories, the 3-part story in series 3, and the mini-episodes. Night and the Doctor is the only exception I can think of off the top of my head. CSB radio (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We already use that concept to count the stories spanning several episodes; it covers serials and episodes. — Edokter (talk) — 19:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying: this list is of stories that span several episodes and stories that only span a single episode. The multi-episode stories are grouped and referred to as "serials." As DocNox pointed out, "serials" is no longer good enough for the overall show. "List of Doctor Who televised stories" covers the serials, the episodes and the tv movie; they are all DW stories of varying lengths. We can include in the opening paragraph a description of the extended vocabulary (serial, episode, and anything else). CSB radio (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Prequels

What happend to the prequels in this list.
I remember some of them have been somewhere in "Other stories/Television broadcasts".

• The Great Detective
• Vastra Investigates
• The Bells of Saint John - A Prequel
• The Battle of Demon's Run - Two Days Later
• She Said, He Said - A Prequel

It would also be a good idea to move the following short stories to that section:

• Doctor Who: Children in Need (2005)
• Time Crash
• Space/Time
• Pond Life

158.64.4.214 (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

They were removed becuase they are part of the episodes in question, just like the tardisodes were. As for the other shorts; they are part of the series' story arc, so they are maintained in the main list. — Edokter (talk) — 19:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Uncredited credits

I'm a bit uncomfortable with how this list handles uncredited rewrites. The existence of such rewrites is often well documented, but equally often, it's not. We know, for instance, that Terrance Dicks did massive work on The Monster of Peladon, and that Robert Holmes did lots to Revenge of the Cybermen. Scads of people take credit for Attack of the Cybermen. But those stories get credited to their television authors while others get credited to rewriters. In almost every era of Doctor Who the practice was for script editors/showrunners to do some rewrites to stories. To differ from official credits in some cases is a quagmire that marginalizes the contributions of some writers while giving the often false impression that others were not rewritten heavily.

May I suggest using only official credits, remembering that several stories (Ambassadors of Death, for instance) have extended credits on DVD sleeves? That is, if a story has been, at any point, officially credited to a writer by the BBC we should acknowledge that, but we should not, for example, acknowledge Russell T Davies's rewrites on Fires of Pompeii based on A Writer's Tale. (And pseudonymously penned episodes should be expanded, I agree.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Series 7 Ratings Figures

Whilst the figures have been updated on the main Series 7 page, the table at the top of this page does not list the viewing figures of the final episode of the Series (7.45 million). Also, now that viewing figures have been accumulated for all 15 episodes, the series average can now be calculated and also filled in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.113.172 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The series average on past series has excluded the christmas specials. Shouldn't the series 7 average be calculated the same way? JIGoodier1992 —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, they should all be calculated in the same way. On that subject, I don't see why Christmas specials shouldn't be included in the averages for every series. They are included under the lists of episodes for each series and the "Number of Episodes" tab counts them, so I don't see why their viewing figures shouldn't be accounted for in the series average. They may not be considered officially part of the series, but they are treated as such in every other respect and are produced and filmed simultaneously with the series which they precede. Also, they are not exactly entirely independent of the series' main events - the christmas special last year introduced the Doctor's new companion and was the first appearance of the series' main antagonist. Surely it would make more sense to include them.129.234.113.198 (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I believe they've never included the episodes in the averages due to more people watching at Christmas than the rest of the series? This has always been the case and it would not be representative of the series as a whole. Maybe that's why? JIGoodier1992 —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Twelfth Doctor

It was pretty clear in the final Spring 2013 episode "The Name of the Doctor", that they have cast John Hurt as the Twelfth Doctor. The fan base is too hardcore to accept him as a previous doctor, and all previous doctors have been accounted for. 74.120.133.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking a bit prematurely there aren't you? You've watched the episode, no doubt? The dialogue implies he's a past Doctor, end of. He will not be the next Doctor - "hardcore" doesn't come into it. JIGoodier1992 —Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The episode is more open even the "past" Doctor. He could just as easily be something along the lines of the Valyard. All this WP:SPECULATION will be fun for fans over the next 6 months but none of it belongs in the articles. MarnetteD | Talk 11:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Series 7

Just a minor point but I don't think that Series 7 should be listed as starting on 25 December 2011, none of the other series include the Christmas Specials and I found it a bit confusing. I can't edit it myself so if anyone else agrees with me would be very grateful if they could edit it. Thanks! 77.100.136.136 (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right, Asylum of the Daleks is officially considered the first episode of series 7, which means it began on 1 September 2012. It's been corrected. —Flax5 13:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

What happens at Night missing

Hi,

I think the episode 'What happens at Night' is missing.

It was recently linked on the Doctor Who official Facebook page :

http://vimeo.com/67976992

Can someone add it ?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danicela (talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's titled "Night and the Doctor", and it's listed. DonQuixote (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Episode count and broadcast dates

I can't help being confused about the episode counts and dates in the new series of Doctor Who. For example, the Series 7 dates say 1 Septemer 2012 - 18 May 2013 and apparently includes 15 episodes. During this time there were only 14 episodes broadcast. I can only assume that the 2011 Christmas Special is being counted so surely the premiere date should be 25 December 2011? This applies to Series 6 too, 13 episodes were broadcast between 23 April 2011 and 1 October 2011 yet the Christmas Special from the previous year is being counted. My argument also applies Series 2, 3 and 4. This creates confusion for readers. Please can somebody clarify why the Christmas broadcast dates are not included?
EDIT: Also, during the physical list of Series 7 episodes, the 2011 Christmas Special isn't even included! It is classed as a 2011 Special...
EDIT2: How do people feel about this table below being implemented? It seems perfect. Feedback welcome.

Doctor	Season/Series	Broadcast day	Episodes	Premiere Date	Premiere viewers (in millions)	Finale Date	Finale viewers (in millions)	Average viewers (in millions)
Ninth Doctor	Series 1	Saturday	13	26 March 2005	10.81	17 June 2005	6.91	7.31
Tenth Doctor	Series 2	Sunday (special) Saturday (series)	14	25 December 2005 (special) 15 April 2006 (series)	8.62	8 July 2006	8.22	7.64
	Series 3	Monday (special) Saturday (series)	14	25 December 2006 (special) 31 March 2007 (series)	8.71	30 June 2007	8.61	7.54
	Series 4	Tuesday (special) Saturday (series)	14	25 December 2007 (special) 5 April 2008 (series)	9.14	5 July 2008	10.57	8.04
	2008–10 Specials	Thursday (1) Saturday (2) Sunday (3) Friday (4 & 5)	5	25 December 2008	13.10	1 January 2010	12.27	11.45
Eleventh Doctor	Series 5	Saturday	13	3 April 2010	10.09	26 June 2010	6.70	7.73
	Series 6		14	25 December 2010 (special) 23 April 2011 (series)	8.86	1 October 2011	7.67	7.51
	Series 7 Part 1	Sunday (special) Saturday (series)	6	25 December 2011 (special) 1 September 2012 (series)	8.33	29 September 2012	7.82	7.96
	Series 7 Part 2	Tuesday (special) Saturday (series)	9	25 December 2012 (special) 30 March 2013 (series)	8.44	18 May 2013	7.45	7.12
	2013 Specials	Saturday (1) Wednesday (2)	2	23 November 2013	—	25 December 2013	—	—
Twelfth Doctor	Series 8	TBA	TBA	2014	—	—	—	—

Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You would also need to change the series averages to include the christmas specials for all series. For some reason, the christmas special "The Snowmen" has been taken into account for the Series 7 viewership average - whereas in the past, the christmas specials viewership was never added to the series average because they all achieve higher ratings than the actual series. JIGoodier1992 —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it has been taken into account for series 7. I think this discussion has been on here before and I understand why they don't include because it can help give an unfair reflection on the average viewers. Do you agree with the table in principle though? Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. I very much like the table you've done now and would definately like to see that become the new table on the article. It's much more accurate with the information presented. JIGoodier1992 —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone implement the new table? The messy series averages on the article are bugging me. JIGoodier1992 —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I was waiting to see if anyone disagreed with it.  Done Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is series 7 listed in two parts but not series 6? Frogkermit (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it just looks cluttered and I see no reason for them to be split on the table, especially since Series 6 was also split in half and has not been changed. It would be much tidier if Series 7 was kept as a single entry comprising all its episodes, with the Christmas specials excluded from the ratings calculations as noted below the table.2.31.21.61 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I was experiment with or without series 7 being split in 2 but the fact is, the BBC split series 7 into 2 separate runs where as series 6 was one lot of 13 episodes with a gap. This series was specifically designed to be in 2 parts. I shall try and find a link for you Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 June 2013

Please change the name of the director of this year's (2013) Doctor Who Christmas special from TBA to Jamie Payne. The source could be: "http://blogtorwho.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/christmas-special-director-revealed.html". Thanks in advance! Der Gotta (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Blogs aren't considered reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Broadcast day

Would anyone be opposed to just removing the "broadcast day" column completely from the table? It seems very trivial to me. -- DocNox (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I partly agree. It does make the table feel cluttered and every regular series so far has been on a Saturday but I suppose it is used for reference and this is an encyclopaedia so I think we will have to keep it. Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This may be an encyclopedia, but it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I fail to see how the day of the week a random special aired on is notable. --DocNox (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I suppose it's so people can see the differences throughout the 30-odd series. We'll wait and see if anyone else has an opinion first. Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The article contains the dates that each of the 33 series started and ended on. I don't see how the days are relevent when someone could just look up what day the episodes were broadcast on using the dates provided. I'm for getting rid of the days too. JIGoodier1992 —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 July 2013

Please change the (all missing) in Marco Polo for season 1. I found a link to the episode (source: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x102l3o_doctor-who-s01e04-marco-polo-1-the-roof-of-the-world-recon_shortfilms?search_algo=2#.UdtSrN9hKY4) Njoerger (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not the episode, it's a reconstruction using pictures and narration. DonQuixote (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Series splits

If you're going to split series 7 into Part 1 and Part 2, Series 6 should be split up too as it was broadcast in two seperate halves, just like series 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasriona (talk • contribs) 11:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Series 7 was broadcast as Part 1 and Part 2 by the BBC. Series 6 was not. Thank you for your comment. Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

for the interests of clarity the bbc episode list treats part 1 and part 2 of series 7 separately see here whereas it treats all of series 6 as one series. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the source. I was going to come back and source it but never got round to it. Thanks. Bestbaggiesfan ✉ 22:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, series 7 should be paced as ONE series, as it is just one series, the complete series 7 box set is being released soon, with the entire series in one, so it should be ordered as just one series, not two parts, it's unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.118.139 (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that Series 7 should be listed as one series. It is being released as one series in a box set. It was also commissioned by the BBC as one complete series. Sure, the BBC's website lists the episodes in three separate groups. But why should what one website says overshadow how the episodes were commissioned and released (as one complete series)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnleddedMan (talk (talk) 24:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What you believe to be true and what you can find reliable sources for are two completely separate thing. The most reliable source available at the moment treats the series as two parts (see above). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Christmas Special 2013

Can we get a name change from TBA for the Christmas Special? There's apparently been a release of title for it.

http://www.cultbox.co.uk/features/guides/7096-doctor-who-series-8-news-summary

220.245.146.235 (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That title has been rumoured since the day it was revealed Matt Smith would regenerate in the episode. So it could still be a rumour. I don't believe there has been official BBC confirmation yet.Bestbaggiesfan ✉ 11:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Other Dr Who movies

Should there be an additional subheading under "Other Stories" listing the extra movies that were made with a small paragraph describing each one. Particularly the movies "Dr Who and the Daleks", "Daleks – Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D." Bigmudcake (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

PS

Why is P.S. not in the overview ? Heinrich k (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The Doctors Revisited

Where would it be best to mention the existence of "The Doctors Revisited" ?
These are specials created to celebrate 50 years of Doctor Who by producing one special each month devoted to one Doctor. Thus, January 2013's special was all about the First Doctor, and so forth. The specials consist of a half hour documentary full of images, clips, and commentary by actors, writers, directors, producers, and fans. Some of the comments are from surviving cast members. After the short documentary comes a warm introduction of an episode (in the sense of a complete story line) starring that particular Doctor.
This kind of thing may be different from what's listed in this article so far, but I can't find any article that mentions it either. This project is notable to the history of Doctor Who, so I hope someone can find a good place for it either here or elsewhere. jg (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

As you say, they are notable to the show's history but they aren't really part of the show's story line. They should go in the 50th's page because they are directly caused by the anniversary.... Or put them in History of Doctor Who because they are essentially memorials of its history. ––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 19:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess what I'm trying to say is... We should include any notable info they tell us in History of Doctor Who and mention that they were part of the build-up to the 50th in 50th anniversary special (Doctor Who). We shouldn't include them here because they aren't part of the regular story (Name of the Doctor, etc.).––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 20:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Episode Numbers

How come the episode numbers don't match the numbers on the DVDs (e.g., on Amazon)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.36 (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There are several different numbering systems, as explained in the fourth paragraph of the introduction. Edgepedia (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I missed that part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.35.34 (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Night and the Doctor

Could someone please add the 5 "Night and the Doctor" shorts from 2011? It should go right before The Doctor, The Widow, and the Wardrobe. InternetOnline (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer not, because they weren't made for TV. We don't list other DVD extras as if they were part of the canon, so once we let those in, the way is open for all sorts of poor-quality fan-made material. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the "Night" shorts as well as the two "Meanwhile" shorts from 2010 can be found under Other stories section, in the table 'Home video releases'. Micraboy (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest adding each Night short in a certain order if they are to be included in the regular list of stories. If anyone agrees to include them in the list so that they fit in the show's continuity (which I have sorted in my own list), then I will look it up.—Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 01:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S.

Hi, just wondering if there is a reason why P.S. does not appear on the Doctor Who serials article. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

it's an odd one that. it's not been filmed (according to the article) and it even if it was it feels a bit like a deleted scene. I don't know whether it should or shouldn't be an article (let alone included in the list). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I say it should be included right after "The Angels Take Manhattan". It is a deleted scene that was produced after fans wanted a conclusion to the dad's story.—Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 01:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It depends on where you want to mention it. As far as I know we only mention these shorts of the aired on TV which this one didn't. I do think that it would be perfectly okay to mention it in the TATM article with the details about why it didn't air. I for one am glad that it was made - it was disappointing to go from Brian telling the Doctor to "just bring them back safe" to the Dr not bringing them back in the next story. MarnetteD | Talk 01:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops I see that it is in the infoboxes already. My mistake. MarnetteD | Talk 01:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops x2. If you are asking if it should be added to the table on this article I note that we have "Pond Life" listed but not any of the others that have been produced. We should probably come to a consensus about this so you may want to add a post to the Dr Who projects talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 01:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Night of the doctor

should this go somewhere?

[3]

188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but as to whether it goes in Eighth or Eleventh I'm not sure. Tom walker (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Should be in the Specials (2013) section, as an un-numbered mini-episode (as per similar mini-episodes in recent years). 5.81.139.184 (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Should probably also be a line in the Eighth Doctor section mentioning it. It's not a multi-doctor story in the sense that it doesn't feature the current Doctor, only Eight and Hurt's. There's no real precedent to this in the show's history. Tom walker (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It should definitely be in the Specials (2013) section. It was produced and released as part of the Eleventh Doctor's tenure, serves (according to the BBC) as a prequel to the Eleventh Doctor's episode "The Day of the Doctor," and would spoil John Hurt's reveal later in the series if viewed as part of the Eighth Doctor's tenure. While the mini-episode is an Eighth Doctor story, it is an Eighth Doctor story that is part of the Eleventh Doctor's time on the show, as part of the War Doctor plot of the Eleventh Doctor's era. Bottom line: If anything puts this mini-episode in the Specials (2013) section, it's the fact that it's a special in 2013. UnleddedMan (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Minisodes

It seems like quite a lot of the minisodes are missing from this page, see list on reddit. For example "Clara and the TARDIS". Does anyone have time to add them? Alexbowyer (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Date Change

The date of the end of the ninth doctor's series was 18th June 2005 not 17th June 2005. The 17th was a Friday. JenOak (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Etron81 (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

An Adventure in Space and Time

I would suggest that the BBC historical fiction docudrama An Adventure in Space and Time be listed in the 'Other stories - Television broadcasts' section of this article. It is a special occasion BBC production related to Doctor Who.--ɱ (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

But it is not a Doctor Who episode, or even related show. It was produced entirely independent of Doctor Who. — Edokter (talk) — 21:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those criteria are among those listed under the 'Other stories - Television broadcasts' section of this article. And although the BBC special may not be the absolute best fit, I still believe it would be a worthwhile and valid contribution.--ɱ (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There's probably quite a few of the various specials around the 50th that should be added onto this page. see this list and this one Alexbowyer (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested change

I recommend that there be a change in the numbering of stories 1-19, specifically in regard to An Unearthly Child and Mission to the Unknown. For one, there is no such thing as a serial "T/A" or "DC," as used for Mission to the Unknown in the current list. That episode was counted as the fifth episode of Serial T. But we are not numbering serials, correct? So that is not an issue because we are numbering stories. If we are numbering stories, then Mission to the Unknown is part of The Daleks Master Plan and is not a separate story. On the other hand, An Unearthly Child is not part of 100,000 BC and is a separate story. So my recommendation is to number An Unearthly Child as story 1 and 100,000 BC as story 2. Then count Mission to the Unknown as part of The Daleks Master Plan. In this way, there is no change in the numbering of stories from that point forward. Everything else would stay the same, but we would have a more accurate count of stories 1-19.Don Bodo (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Documents say that "An Unearthly Child" and the following three episodes were one production. Documents also say that Mission to the Unknown was commissioned as a filler. If you have sources that say otherwise, please provide them. DonQuixote (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

DQ is correct. Numerous books and articles written over the years will back that info up. If memory serves there was an earlier serial (I have forgotten the specific story) that had been shortened by one episode and in the end "MttU" was commissioned to use that slot. While it is a prequel to TDM in all of the documentation that I have seen it has always been listed as a stand alone episode. MarnetteD | Talk 16:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to provide you with documentation.

First, with regard to Mission to the Unknown, as David Howe and Stephen Walker state in Doctor Who: The Television Companion (p. 70): "This episode was made for all intents and purposes as if it was a fifth episode of Galaxy 4--e.g., the production crew were all the same, all the film inserts were shot together, etc." As part of a single production block, it would have been counted as part of serial T. As far as I know, the designation "T/A" was concocted by Jean Marc Lofficier for his Doctor Who Programme Guide, which was first published in 1981. I know of no earlier occurrence of the "T/A" designation. You may correct me if I am wrong. So, if we are counting serials, Mission to the Unknown would not be a separate one, and we would have to reduce the number of serials by one. Fortunately, that is not necessary, because we are counting stories, not serials.

Second, serials and stories are not the same thing. This is evident, for example, in the case of Trial of a Timelord, which was produced as four serials (or at least as four production blocks), but in fact was presented to the audience as only one story (Howe and Walker, Doctor Who: The Television Companion, p. 492). The fact that this Wikipedia article counts The Trial of a Timelord as one demonstrates that here we are counting stories and not serials or production blocks.

Third, Mission to the Unknown is not a separate story. It is general knowledge that it is part of the story called The Daleks Master Plan. "This single episode story was devised as a trailer for a longer (as it turned out, much longer) Dalek story later in the season." (Howe and Walker, Doctor Who: The Television Companion, p. 70). Indeed, this is confirmed by the fact that the novelisation of Daleks Master Plan includes Mission to the Unknown--it was never made into a separate book. If we are counting stories, Mission to the Unknown should be considered the first episode in the Daleks Master Plan. I fully realize this is not "conventional," but it is more accurate. I also realize that combining Mission to the Unknown with the Daleks Master Plan would reduce the number of stories by one, and this would throw quite a wrench in the works. However, another consideration relieves us of this problem...

Fourth, DQ's point about an Unearthly Child being part of the same production block is correct, but that would only be relevant if we were counting production blocks. We're not. We are counting stories. So is the first episode of Doctor Who a standalone story? Or is it the first part of a four part story? Note the comment by Howe and Stammers: "100,000 BC can be subdivided into two distinct sections with very different settings and qualities: the first episode and the remaining three" (p. 10). This division is apparent to us if we watch it. As a matter of fact, if we watched only the three episodes set in prehistoric times, it would play like any other Doctor Who story--the Tardis would arrive, the characters would get into trouble, and then they would solve their problems. The first episode stands all by itself. It was co-scripted by Anthony Coburn and C.E. Webber, whereas the remaining three were written by Anthony Coburn alone. And as the very first episode of Doctor Who, An Unearthly Child is not merely an intro to 100,000 BC; it is an intro to the entire programme.

So these are the reasons I make the recommendation. The advantage is that it would more accurately convey the count of stories and at the same time not affect the overall count of stories. Don Bodo (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The question of the authenticity of the code T/A has come up before on Wikipedia; a few years ago, admittedly, and I can't find it. But the code T/A is genuine and not concocted: I refer you to

• Bentham, Jeremy (1986). Doctor Who: The Early Years. London: W.H. Allen. pp. 182–3. ISBN 0-491-03612-4.

which shows a contemporary special effects drawing of a distress rocket to be made by Shawcraft Models. At top left, also at bottom right, it states "DR. WHO SERIES T/A EPISODE 1 of 1". Not "Series DC" or "Series T", nor "Episode 5 of 5" or "1 of 13". It's dated 16 July 1965, so must be regarded as firm evidence that not only was "Mission to the Unknown" a story in its own right, but that it was assigned the code T/A at some point on or before 16 July 1965. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It's interesting that, even though Bentham's book was in print when they researched theirs, Howe-Stammers-Walker in Doctor Who: The Handbook: The First Doctor (p. 109) write: "It has been generally believed for a long time that the production code for this serial was T/A. However, this does not appear on any available BBC documentation of the period." Looks like they were wrong. Nevertheless, would you not consider it significant that a separate letter was not used for this episode? Why not "U"? And, of course, since we are counting stories, my other points still stand. Don Bodo (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

For "An Unearthly Child", it's mentioned in the article proper (An Unearthly Child) how parts of the original story by Weber (which didn't make it to production) were incorporated into the Caves story by Coburn. It's also mentioned how this was still one production (not production block). So, yeah, it started out as two stories, but in the end it ended up as one serial (serial A). In the end, the sources list serials rather than stories, and we reflect the sources. DonQuixote (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I think most if not all reliable sources have 'An Unearthly Child' as a four part story (The BBC for example), so having it as one story is prefectly correct. Similarly, most if not all reliable sources have Mission separate from both Galaxy 4 and Dalek Master Plan (again - The BBC for example), so having it separate is again perfectly correct. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

PS - That article on Mission has 'Production Code: TA' - in fact I think all the codes for the first 26 years are taken from the BBC site. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

DQ, if what you say is correct, that "the sources list serials rather than stories, and we reflect the sources," then we need to count The Trial of a Timelord as four, rather than one. My point is that we are inconsistent. By the way, no one here has attempted to explain why "Mission to the Unknown" is not catalogued as a separate letter of the alphabet. The fact that there is a "T" at the front of "T/A" shows quite clearly that it was part of production "T." Counting "T/A" as a separate production would be the same as counting "1A" as the number 2. Regarding "reliable" sources, I'm not clear why yours count and mine do not. Don Bodo (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Trial of a Time Lord was a recent thing. If I recall correctly, Russell T Davies mentioned counting all four as one and DWM followed suit...and so did this article. There's a passage mentioning this and how it conflicts with the numbering on the DVD spine. DonQuixote (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not for us to determine why particular codes were used and not others (it's always puzzled me why O was omitted, but OO, OOO etc. were not). At a guess, I'd say that they had allotted the letters as far as U (maybe further) before they got the go-ahead for "Mission to the Unknown". To alter codes U, V, etc. that were already in use would have meant sending revised documents to, for example, special effects contractors, which would have been a wasteful task when it was a simpler matter to keep existing codes as they were, and merely create a new code for the extra story. The code T/A may have been chosen because it at least had the merit of falling into natural alphabetic sequence. To be certain you'd need to check contemporary documents, or ask somebody who was involved at the time. Unfortunately, we can't check with Verity Lambert, who almost certainly had a hand in it. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ask why because I didn't know the answer. It was a rhetorical question. The answer is plain: It starts with "T" because it is part of serial T. And it has the "A" because it is a subdivision of serial T. Don Bodo (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither of your last two statements is necessarily true, so the answer is not plain. They are both possibilities, as is my alphabetic-sequence suggestion; but none of these can be treated as certainties without verification. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Your "alphabetic-sequence suggestion" didn't explain anything. Don Bodo (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Where's thee inconsistency? Unearthly Child is done as it is by the BBC, Mission is done as it is by the BBC, Trial is done as it is by the BBC. As said above it's not for us to use our own opinions on the matter. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The BBC simply took the numbering from the early episode guides (specifically Lofficier's). So even their numbering goes back to an opinion. Let's not confuse the BBC with the production team. Don Bodo (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Jean-Marc Lofficier didn't number any serials. He used the letter codes; and he was certainly not the first to do so - the system is described at

• Dicks, Terrance; Hulke, Malcolm (1976) [1972]. "Chapter 12: 4A—The Diary of a Production". The Making of Doctor Who. London: Target Books. p. 103. ISBN 0-426-11615-1.

Terrance Dicks was most definitely a member of the production team; and in the use of words like "the next season's serials will be referred to as 4A, 4B, 4C etc." it's clear that he was writing at the time that season 12 was in production. This was seven years earlier than Lofficier - so far from the BBC copying Lofficier, it was the other way around. In the same book (pp. 53, 62-63), Dicks shows: "An Unearthly Child (4 Episodes)"; "Galaxy Four (4 Episodes)"; "Mission to the Unknown (1 Episode)"; "The Dalek Master Plan (12 Episodes)". --Redrose64 (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Terrance Dicks did not work on the show during Season 3. I have to say I am somewhat surprised that you think "Mission to the Unknown" is a complete story, when the production team explicitly called it a teaser to "The Daleks Master Plan." Don Bodo (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

wiki works with reliable sources- not your personal opinions. so quite frankly "Drop the stick" 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if you think I was belaboring this, whoever you are. I simply made a recommendation based on the reliable sources I cited above. Please see further the article on Mission to the Unknown under "Alternative Titles." Don Bodo (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

If anything, that confirms that the story was only ever viewed as one. It was sold under either 'Mission ...', 'dalek cutway', or both - but always as individual thing. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

War Doctor

Shouldn't there be a "War Doctor" section between "Eighth Doctor" and "Ninth Doctor" ?? Alexbowyer (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

How so? Hurt has appeared two episodes (one of those briefly) in 2013, not between 1996 and 2005. Please read WP:INUNIVERSE. Edgepedia (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

He appeared in two episodes during Matt Smith's tenure. His appearances belong there. Tphi (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a list of Doctor Who serials. The only thing that matters is the years. Splitting the large table up into subsections lining up with the individual Doctors is a recent thing and wasn't the original purpose of the table. Putting a subsection for Hurt serves no purpose on this page. DonQuixote (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Series 8 table

The series 8 table seems to assume 13 episodes (no chance of more or less then?), all of which are shown to be individual stories (no two-parters), which is neither confirmed, or confirmed as the opposite. Also, the Christmas special is always shown in a separate table. SAS1998―Talk 01:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's fine for now, people will change all of that once the episodes start airing.--ɱ (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Series 8 (2014) date?

Can someone please clarify a probable date range for “Autumn 2014” in relation to the 2014 series? It appears to relate to UK broadcast seasons but in the southern hemisphere the weather seasons and broadcast seasons are at different times of the year than the UK, and not all regions have four seasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.68.25 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The source for the statement is [4], and this says Autumn. As you say this is ambiguous but we can only report what reliable sources are saying; I've had a look but I can't see anything that clarifies this. Edgepedia (talk) 09:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, autumn TV schedules typically begin late September, so that a series with a 13-week run finishes just before Christmas, and a series with a 6- (or 7-) week run gives enough time for a different series with a 7- (or 6-) week run to follow it. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Series 7 Episode Codes

Just curious, but why are there no episode codes for Series 7 and 2013 Specials like there is for the previous 32 seasons and movie? 220.245.146.235 (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

These are the production codes and no reliable source that we know of has published them (yet). Edgepedia (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul Wilmshurt confirmed as 2014 Xmas Special Director by doctorwhotv.co.uk :-)