Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "dwm398a" :
  • {{cite journal||date=[[2008-07-24]]|title=Christmas Special enters post production|journal=[[Doctor Who Magazine]]|publisher=[[Panini Comics]]|location=[[Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent]]|issue=398|pages=6|accessdate=2008-07-25}}
  • {{cite journal||date=[[2008-08-20]]|title=Christmas Special enters post production|journal=[[Doctor Who Magazine]]|publisher=[[Panini Comics]]|location=[[Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent]]|issue=398|pages=6|accessdate=2008-07-24}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. — Edokter • Talk • 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Guest stars

Can we add in the special guest stars for 2009 which are Catherine Tate, John Simm, Bernard Cribbins and Paul McGann who will return as the Eighth Doctor. --VitasV (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Those are just rumours from The Sun; and they are highly unreliable. — Edokter • Talk • 22:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If Paul Mcgann is rumoured to appear then you need to add the 9th doctor as you will need the 9th Doctor for the regeneration scene from 8th - 9th Doctor {Ucebaggie (talk)}.

Not really, it would be possible for 8th to skip forward and meet 10th, or vice versa, without getting 9 involved. magnius (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge with list of titled episodes?

There's a discussion on the Doctor Who project talk page about my proposal to merge this article with the list of titled episodes article. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Seven Doctors?

A Daily Telegraph report says that the 2008 Children In Need special would be The Seven Doctors. Now this seems very unlikely to me, given the fact that two of the surviving Doctor actors are awkward buggers, and that this is following hot on the heels of Time Crash. There is the added problem of a (presumably) seven minute programme with seven actors meaning that it wouldn't really be worth their while doing it (even for Cheridee). Does anyone know how true this story is? And are we now to treat this as fact because it's in the Teleg, or do we now count that as a tabloid? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the original report was in a tabloid, the Daily Mirror, and the Telegraph picked it up from that. Either way, the report carries no named sources, so can be treated as unreliable in that respect. Stephenb (Talk) 11:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that this is true, but it would be cool. Also probable lies are Prince Charles and Patrick Stewart being in the 2009 specials. magnius (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Prince Charles thing comes from a statement by RTD who is as great a publicist as JNT was when he asked Prince Edward to do wa walk-on part! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On considering this further, maybe Eccleston and Baker (T) will be appearing as heads made by Millennium FX and be shown floating around 'like gherkins, pickled in time'. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that's funny DF. Don't you think that with the advances in FX over the years that they might look more emblamed than pickled? :-D MarnetteD | Talk 04:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly they could do a cartoon version made by Cosgrove Hall and get archive sound samples of all the dead or awkward Doctors :) DavidFarmbrough (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

reference error

Just to let you know, reference 10 (^ "About the Music / Programme Notes". BBC Proms website. BBC (2008). Retrieved on 2008-07-05) no longer works - the page displays an error message. 129.215.149.97 (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just checked it and it works fine for me. You may want to check your browser settings. MarnetteD | Talk 14:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's because I changed the links. The old one didn't work anymore. — Edokter • Talk • 17:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Edokter. You were quick on the fix since you got it changed before I had a chance to check it. Good Job. MarnetteD | Talk 21:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Moonbase/Macra Terror broadcast

Just happened to spot an error with these entries: The broadcast dates for Moonbase are given as "11 February – 3 March 1967" but The Mara Terror is down as "11 March – 1 April 1967". Unless Moonbase ended on Friday (or Macra Terror started on Sunday) then one of those is wrong. 86.142.140.239 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There may have been something that caused the anomaly in the scheduling, but I'm not sure how you would go about looking up the TV listings for 1967. magnius (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Checking TimeAndDate.com, 3 March 1967 is a Friday and 11 March 1967 is a Saturday. So I'm guessing that 3 March is a typo and it should read 4 March 1967. DonQuixote (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr Who Guide and A Brief History... say 4 March DBD 16:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

List of new series eps

Doctor Who (Revived Series) List Of Episodes.

Just a heads up that this list has been created - I think it should just be a redirect to the new series (9th and 10th doctors) section of this list Etron81 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been proposed for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who (Revived Series) List Of Episodes.. (Note it also has a '.' at the end of the title) Edgepedia (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Specials

Wouldn't it be easier to just count the S4-S5 specials as one group called Specials (2008-10) ATMarsden^{Talk · {Semi-Retired}} 18:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Pah! Easier?! Wikipedians (and Whovians) laugh in the face of easier! DBD 21:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There's pro and cons either way. At the moment the first and second could be combined, as long as all the redirects are changed (again). I missed one last time and there's probably more. Production wise, the Christmas Special 2008 belongs with S4, but there's a new production block for 4.15-4.18. Story arc wise my guess is that all the specials belong together. I'm not sure the Eleventh Doctor label should be where it is though, I haven't removed it because I guess it will come back again. I think these specials will cause us problems as 'Doctor' and 'Companion' are redefined. And don't forget we're promised a big surpise at the end. Edgepedia (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

2009/10 specials, one is easter, with two possibaly for christmas/new year' 2009/10, with one special to be confirmed to be shown during 2009.

DBD, I meant more readable to the public. Anymore opinions welcome. ATMarsden^{Talk · {Semi-Retired}} 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How's about "Gap year specials"? DBD 13:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Post-series 4 specials"? Descriptive, at least! Stephenb (Talk) 15:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

They all have the years after them, so to be consistent I prefer Specials (2008-10). Until we need a name for an article, if one's warranted. Edgepedia (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Which could be Doctor Who (2008-10 specials) Edgepedia (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, all the official sources seem to be treating The Next Doctor as distinct from the 2009-2010 specials (and I'm guessing the only 2010 one would be on New Year's Day anyway?). 86.159.232.74 (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Edgepedia, I do believe that one would be warranted, as the previous 4 series have had articles. That said, they may all be distinct episodes with no continuity between them. Have to get WPDW concensus on that... ATMarsden^{Talk · {Semi-Retired}} 23:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of specials, what's the deal on tonights' CiN broadcast? ATMarsden^{Talk · {Semi-Retired}} 20:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, somebody needs to change the info slightly for the Christmas Special this year. The next Doctor is officially 90 minutes long and not 60. (Unsigned message from 80.42.184.18).

The BBC Press Office says 6:00 to 7:00pm which I make 1 hour. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk52/bbc_one.shtml#bbcone_doctorwho Edgepedia (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Next special to be called Planet of dead... could sum1 change in on here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.124.95 (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added in programme information for the final four specials - writer information comes from DWM #400. Julie & RTD commented in the TND podcast that the final story would be a two parter (the third and fourth special episodes), would be in early 2010, but weren't going to comment on the actual date "to stop ITV scheduling something up against it" basically. Tphi 02:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of specials, there seems to be a circual link on the upcoming "Planet of the Dead"; I think either the redirect should go away and be replaced with a real page or the link removed. 03:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The link should probs be removed for now. Also, can i see confirmation of the title of Easter Special? I think i may know where it came from, but just to check, could you cite it. ATMarsden^{Talk · {Semi-Retired}} 18:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in retrospect, I think that an article title is not needed, as they are "largely self-contained" as the say in the biz. :P ATMarsden^{Talk · {Semi-Retired}} 18:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we 100% sure that 205 is xmas with 206 being new year. for all we know 205 could be summer bank holiday, with 206 (P1 - Xmas Day) & (P2 - New Years Day). {Ucebaggie (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)}

That's what the article is currently trying to say. We know that one episode of 205/6 will be shown Christmas Day, and at least one more in 2010. Can you look at it again? Edgepedia (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I know I'm gonna get argued with, but should Attack of the Graske, The Infinate Quest and Music of the Spheres by listed as continuity stories? Shouldn't they be grouped with A Fix with Sontarans and such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve0377 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno, I think I agree, at least in part. Two of those you list (Graske and Spheres) could probably be moved to be under "Other stories" as "Interactive episodes" since coherent fictional worlds do not usually embrace or address the audience. (Also, strictly speaking, since we're talking about televised episodes here and not, say, webcasts such as Shalka, Spheres was first broadcast on TV after "The Next Doctor"... :) ) Stephenb (Talk) 15:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

split

I suggest that this list be split in two, with the new Doctor Who list being List of Doctor Who episodes... It would also make the list smaller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.195.159 (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2008

I disagree, I see no reason to split it up and suggest that it remains as it is. There is a menu at the top for ease of navigation, so length or article isn't really an issue. magnius (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• How about renaming it to List of Doctor Who Episodes and amending elsewhere accordingly? That'd be more consistent with pretty much every other episode listing page on Wikipedia.Etrigan (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That would make more sense, but whatever happens it shouldn't be split. magnius (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

'Episodes' already redirects here. Since the majority of the list consists of serials, it shouldn't be moved. — Edokter • Talk • 14:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is very long (to be expected from a long running show) and a logical split point is between the old version and the new version. Other very long lists are also split across separate sublists, I don't see why this should be any different. If you want an unassociated way of splitting it, it can be done by choosing decades to cover in each list... then splitting in three or four would make sense. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It makes more sense to me to keep this list as one page. Any division point would be arbitrary. Macduff (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets keep it as it is - as poitned out above - any division would be arbitrary. I would also point out that the currect list as attained Featured List status as it is. Etron81 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind one way or the other, but if it were to be split, "decades" sounds good. DonQuixote (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dissagree - it's all one series - spliting would only increase the myth that they are different. 86.131.241.135 (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Why not ask it this way - what real, practical benefits would there be to splitting the list? I can't think of any. Luminifer (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree: I also agree that any break would be arbitrary. This article is meant to be a list of stories, both in serial and episode format, of the Doctor Who TV show, and any split would detract from that function. The TOC is there for a reason. kingdom2 (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree For reasons stated above. Jon (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but with differences I'd have thought it would have been best to do it by Doctor e.g: List of Doctor Who serials (First Doctor). ATMarsden^{Talk · {Semi-Retired}} 19:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree proposal in current form. Though the idea of sub-articles per-Doctor for the old series, per-season for the new series has floated around my mind for some time. I think The Key to Time and The Trial of a Time Lord would probably have articles anyway. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree for reasons stated above. _TalkIslander 12:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree per Kingdom2's argument above - Tphi (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree per Kingdom2 Stephenb (Talk) 12:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

2009/10 Specials

Here are quotes from the Xmas Day podcast about the dating for the Specials.

Julie Gardener to RTD:

"We're prepping currently for Easter, which will be filmed in January ... [There'll be] three specials, or of course four because the last one is a two-parter."

RTD:

"But there is a lot of fuss online at the moment. People think that like, the last two specials are going out next Easter so Series 5 might be delayed til the Autumn in 2010 which isn't being talked about at all."

Hopefully that clears up any confusion Tphi (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted that last schedule before I thought that the evidence also supports an alternative one. I still do, so I put it up here. My understanding of RTD is that he's saying that the current plans are that the last two specials are doing out before Easter 2010 (as Easter would be too late). We know we have a special at Easter and Christmas 2009, and two more undated specials which gives this possible schedule:

No	Title	Code	Episodes	Writer	Director	Original airdate
Easter special (2009)
204	"Planet of the Dead"	4.15	60 minutes special	Russell T Davies & Gareth Roberts	James Strong	Easter 2009
Special (2009)
205	Special	4.16	60 minutes special	Russell T. Davies & Phil Ford		2009
Christmas special (2009/10)
206	Christmas special (2009) 2nd Part	4.17 4.18	2 episodes	Russell T Davies		Christmas 2009 Early 2010

Edgepedia (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this actually sourced properly? 86.131.241.135 (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Its okay Edgepedia, it was more that the whole table got deleted when I see you just found the dates in question. Tphi (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What we know is that we have four specials, the next one is at Easter, there's one at Christmas 2009, the last two are a two-parter, and the final episode will be shown in early 2010/before Easter 2010. This gives two possible schedules - the one that's on the page, or the one above. Trying to combine the two I get this:

No	Title	Code	Episodes	Writer	Director	Original airdate
Easter special (2009)
204	"Planet of the Dead"	4.15	60 minute special	Russell T Davies & Gareth Roberts	James Strong	Easter 2009
Specials (2009-10)
205	TBA	4.16	60 minute special	Russell T. Davies & Phil Ford		One shown Christmas 2009, with the last shown early 2010
206	TBA (part 1) TBA (part 2)	4.17 4.18	two 60 minute specials	Russell T Davies

Edgepedia (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, it all depends on if 4.16 is the Xmas Special or not. I am pretty sure its going to be, but you're right we shouldn't assume. Anyway, I'm happy with the above compromise Tphi (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we 100% sure that 205 is xmas with 206 being new year. for all we know 205 could be summer bank holiday, with 206 (P1 - Xmas Day) & (P2 - New Years Day). {Ucebaggie (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)}

User talk:Málåsgløbdük - Welcome to the talk page. I've reverted your changes to the tables above; it says Easter, not the 11 April because Easter (can) cover several days. This is the talk page were you can make comments about the article. Edgepedia (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Planet of the Daleks episode 3

Saw this on a forum (registration required) - basically DWM apparently states that Planet of the Daleks is going to be out in colour next year (including episode 3 currently only in B+W). Anyone have DWM to confirm this for the table? 86.149.200.10 (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they have managed to get it into colour Doctor Who News page, Restoration website. Would remove the bit about B+W myself, but this article is protected. 86.149.200.10 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm this. It's part of their feature about how to survive 2009. I'll find the page numbers out in a while. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cook, Benjamin (8 January 2008). "How to Survive 2009". Doctor Who Magazine (403). Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent: pp 39–48. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)

minor correction

The section on the first Doctor concludes by refering to event in fourth episode - it should be fourth season. Please change "...and regenerating at the end of episode four." to: "...and regenerating at the end of the fourth season." (or "that episode")

 Done, thanks for the correction. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted - it was at the end of episode 4 of The Tenth Planet, which is what the article said. Stephenb (Talk) 19:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that "at the end of that story" may be less misleading, my initial read of that sentence interpreted it as "episode four of some unspecified series" which is why I suspected it was an error. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Planet of the Dead

The link to Lee Evans should lead here. 129.67.53.40 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. — Edokter • Talk • 23:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Euros Lyn Directing Tennant Departure

Several news sources are reporting that Euros Lyn will be directing David Tennant's two-part finale (whenever that may be), 4.17 and 4.18. As far as can gather, the source of this news is this page: http://www.newsarama.com/tv/010926-NYCC-Torchwood.html (just search for "and will direct David Tennant’s final two episodes as the current Doctor," you'll find it). I'd make the adjustments myself, but I don't think I have the clearance. Levi3o4 (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the BBC America press release which I guess is the source of the above:

http://www.press.bbcamerica.com/press/programdetails.jsp?program_id=87

--TS 20:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Julie Gardner

I've edited the article to correct a mistake about Julie Gardner's position on the production team. Gardner isn't being replaced as executive producer on Doctor Who until series 5; she's staying on for the specials, contrary to what the article was saying. Piers Wenger is replacing her as Head of Drama early this year, but won't take over on Doctor Who until the summer.

All explained in this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/12/11/51435.shtml

--Boon2006 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made another edit. If you read the article carefully (also the one here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/12_december/11/who.shtml), you can clearly see that Wenger has already taken over from Gardner as Head of Drama for BBC Wales, but won't take over her role on Doctor Who until Series 5.

--Boon2006 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Season/series?

Doctor who is a british show so it should ought to have the british terminolgy of series and not season, is there an other way of using series instead of season without causing some confusion from the classic series and the new one? Pro66 (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The classic series were called seasons by the producers and the BBC, so we should leave it like this. — Edokter • Talk • 23:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Link

Please, set this link in article ru:Список эпизодов телесериала «Доктор Кто». —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotoshane (talk • contribs)

Y Done ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Specials

Do you put Canadian airdates for the specials? "The Next Doctor" will air on Space, March 14 @ 9:00pm ET.

http://www.channelcanada.com/Article2709.html

http://www.spacecast.com/Schedule.aspx?fldate=3/14/2009%2012:00:00%20AM 65.92.164.58 (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not generally, no. Since the show premieres in the UK, we use the UK dates. I also doubt the next special would air before it premieres in the UK, which is in April. The 1st link does not say which special will air. — Edokter • Talk • 14:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your are more than likely correct Edoktor but don't forget that there is a precedence for Doctor Who episodes airing outside the UK first. The Five Doctors and The Television Movie both aired in the US before their UK showings and we have those dates listed in this article. Unfortunately there is no knowing when these specials are finally going to air in the US Drat It :-{ MarnetteD | Talk 16:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

These tend to be the excpetion rather than the rule - I think it's safe to assume that they will premiere in the UK, unless we have concrete proof otherwise (No New Series episodes have premiered outside the UK to my knowledge) Etron81 (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely Etron81. I mentioned this just so that we can keep our eyes and our options open. MarnetteD | Talk 17:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The special is mentioned and I mentioned it above. "The Next Doctor".20:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.164.58 (talk)

Missed that. However, "The Next Doctor" already aired last Christmas in the UK. — Edokter • Talk • 23:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Easter Special

Why is this page locked? I wanted to edit the dates for the specials to something meaningful and useful to everyone -- I had to look up when Easter is, since I don't bother with religious garbage. Why not just put the date, and "(easter)" if we feel the need to keep that? 69.57.202.221 (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, "Easter Special" doesn't necessarily mean "on Easter day". DonQuixote (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's being called the "Easter Special", but there isn't an exact date yet. Easter is fairly well known (it's the one with the chocolate eggs) - I don't think it needs to be explained any more than Christmas does. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

While easter, and it's chocolate eggs and associated candies and animals is well known, it's date is not. Since we are not discussing the rituals practiced, that portion does not help much. On the other hand, we are using the holiday to specify a date, and that is something about the holiday not many know off the top of their heads.

You think that a floating holiday whose date is determined by a calculation based on OTHER floating religious events does not need to be explained any more than a set date that is pretty much universally known to be Dec 25? While most people I know can tell you the date that christmas falls on in any given year, I recently asked 5 catholics what the date of Easter was. None knew. One was at least able to tell me how many Sundays away it was. None could even tell me what month next year's Easter was in. Not only that, but it appears, according to a quick scan of the article, there are actually *2* dates for easter in most years, differing by over a month in some cases. 134.161.227.84 (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not hard to figure out when Easter 2009 is, just put "Easter 2009" in google. We can only say that it will air sometime over the Easter weekend because that is all that we officially know. It will probably the Saturday, but that is of course tbc. magnius (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why not do so? Why force readers to look up the date? Why hide the fact that the date has not even been announced? 134.161.227.84 (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This also does not explain why the page is locked -- with no comment why on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.161.227.84 (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the production team is calling it the "Easter Special" - but the actual broadcast date is unknown, so to put in a date would be incorrect. We could link "Easter" to the page so people can find out what sunday it is. As for why the page is locked, see WP:PP - articles are sometimes locked to prevent vandalism. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think we can unlock this. It appears that the page was locked (based on the revision history) due to a small handful of IP edits a full year ago. To me, it would make more sense, and protray *much* more useful information to say something like "Expected air date near April 12 or 19", as that would both inform that the date is approximate, and actually give the date. Even if you bury the useful information in an article about easter, and add the wasted, unneeded clicks, you are still omitting that information. Given the show's history of x-mas specials being aired on x-mas, that seems useful information. 134.161.227.84 (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We can only add a date if it can be sourced, and right now, the BBC has not confirmed anything. Putting anything other the 'Easter' will only add to the confusion if it turnes out to be wrong. And history aside; we simply cannot guess... we're an encyclopedia. — Edokter • Talk • 20:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Expected airdate" would be speculation - wikipedia is not a crystal Ball, and as Edokter says above a date cannot be added until there is a source. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the prediction that it will be aired around easter be removed? All I am proposing is making it less work for people to find out when it is scheduled. Right now, you are making people look up the date of easter, and are additionally hiding the fact that it has not been announced for a particular date. Leaving in the unneeded religious overtones, and extra looking up detracts from the article and reduces the amount of information available. I'm not following your logic. Would you like me to list sources stating when easter is? Wern't you the one claiming that the date of easter is as well known as christmas? 134.161.227.84 (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The BBC have said Easter, they have not specified a date yet. There's no need to list sources when Easter is, it's a well known spring holiday in the UK when most people have two days off work, schools are closed, banks shut for the Friday and the Monday, trains have a special timetable, supermarkets are closed on the Sunday and the main television companies have special programming.

We can't specify a date or a date range because Easter can mean different things:

• Easter Day
• Eastertide, fifty days from Easter day to Pentecost

But in the UK the whole (long) weekend is commonly called 'Easter'. In the US this might be called Spring Holiday, but in the UK Easter is still commonly used. Edgepedia (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the logs [1] this article was unprotected a year ago, and then had to be protected again a week later due to persistent vandalism. Edgepedia (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems most of those edits were time-sensitive and even the person protecting the page seemed to think it was short term. 134.161.227.84 (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for unprotection Edgepedia (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you exactly what'll happen if the page is unlcoked. A bunch of Ip's will come in and add lots of different speculative titles for the remaining three specials. (which is one of the things that caused the article to be locked) - see one comment "Seems like vandalism is coming back a lot since unprotection on the 18th". Eleventh Doctor (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

3rd & 4th specials 2010?

I'm sorry, but nowhere in that Den of Geek article does it say that the remaining specials will air solely in 2010. What's to say one doesn't air on Boxing Day, or any other day prior to the New Year? We don't know what the production team have got planned. Pdb781 | Talk 12:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible, but highly unlikely. Considering the 2nd special airs Christmas 2009, and the next two specials are a double-parter, there isn't a whole lot of time left for yet another special in 2009. — Edokter • Talk • 23:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not our position to decide what's likely or not. The last special has been described in BBC press releases as airing "New Year 2010", which makes it just as likely that the 3rd special will air 2009. Pdb781 | Talk 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link? — Edokter • Talk • 13:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A link to a press release? The "New Year 2010" thing is mentioned at the end of Matt Smith's announcement. It's worth noting that more recent press releases about Doctor Who just say "2009 specials", with no reference to 2010 at all, although that could be an oversight. Pdb781 | Talk 18:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This official BBC Casting announcement states "Lindsay joins David Tennant as he continues his role as The Doctor in the second of four Doctor Who Specials to be screened throughout 2009." Which seems to suggest that all four will be aired this year. Of course, that could be an oversight too, I guess we can only wait for further announcements to clear the issue up. magnius (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree; none of the press releases are in any way conclusive. Since we do not know when the final two specials will air, I've left it open. — Edokter • Talk • 19:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

All the reports imply that all three remaining specials will be shown at Christmas, because they apparently form a three parter, although the first one would be seperate the way Utopia was to it's conclusion. Until we have the exact dates, I vote we state all three as simply Christmas 2009 - although it might turn out that the regeneration episode, the last of the specials, is shown on New Years Day, 2010. Digifiend (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I too have seen reports, but none of them could be called a reliable source. We need information from reliable sources. Edgepedia (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Waters of Mars?

Can i have another source particularly a link saying that it is the title other then some tv guide that has the sentence "Tales from the Rumour Mill". Untill i hve get another source i think im gonna redirect the article to here till we get better sources mainly from bbc or doctor who. Pro66 (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a scan of the magazine. Please not that I'm an experiened contributor, frequently removing original research from articles, and give me the credit that I'm not making up a reference. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The TVGuide article is divided into paragraphs headed "rumour" and "confirmed" - and the info in question is found in the introduction, and is therefore presented as the most concrete part of the material within. I think this is reliable enough. The info about Jessica Hynes returning is also interesting, but there's nowhere to put it yet ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Still seems a bit odd to me, but we'll probably know at the end of "Planet of the Dead". — Edokter • Talk • 11:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit odd, but it seems to meet WP:RS, and adding it sourced will prevent IPs from adding it unsourced :P Can we agree that it'll do for the next few days, at any rate? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You should have moved 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who). I'll do so and merge the histories. — Edokter • Talk • 11:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

< Oh, sorry, hadn't spotted that! Thanks... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've actually moved this back. Having reviewed the source, it cannot be used as proof of the title (especially given that it is listed under "From the Rumour Mill"). As well, I'm not seeing anything solid in terms of Google Web or News results that confirm the title. There's no rush to move this, and we are better off moving it on the day of, rather than having to move it back/elsewhere if the source is wrong. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you consider undoing the hour's work that you've just undone? Edokter and I considered that it was adequate until the weekend, given that IPs will just come along and start adding in the new title anyway; and you've decided that we're wrong... Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why the rush? If IPs are problematic, the article can be semi-protected, just as with past rumours. We're not in a position to be interpreting the "Rumours" section of a TV guide to guess as to what portions are "reliable" rumours, and which parts are just "speculative" rumours. The fact that no sources close to the show - the producers, the BCB, and so on - have confirmed this should make us cautious. (If we wait, and then move to "Waters", then Wikipedia appears to be prudent in waiting for reliable proof. If we move now, then move again to correct a mistake, Wikipedia then appears to be using unreliable sources, and that impacts on overall perceptions of the project.) The long and the short of it is that there is no rush; we don't have to be first. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The provided source appears to be reliable, and the article separates fact from rumour. *shrug* Matthew (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

:-O I hope this marks an encouraging new trend of us being in agreement ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "rumours" section. You are misinterpreting the title. There are four or five sections specifically marked as rumours, just as there are an equal number of sections explicitly labelled as facts. The overall article is designed to emphasise this dichotomy, and is titled as such; if you read the text, rather than just the heading, this becomes clear. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever people decide, the next special after "Planet of the Dead" cannot accurately be described as the "2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who)". The latest sources (Doctor Who Magazine's most recent issue and Russell T Davies on BBC News this morning) have the special being scheduled for before the Christmas period, with Davis saying "probably November(ish)". As such there's no basis for keeping the "2009 Christmas special" title - and even a rumoured title strikes me as more accurate than leaving things as they currently are. If you want to be strict about the reliability of of sources, you should delete the "2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who)" article until Saturday when we'll know what the next special is called. I'll leave it to more experienced editors than me to reach a consensus on this. Maccy69 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Between Russell T. Davies' comments on BBC Breakfast today and this TV Guide scan, I think we can have two separate articles: The Waters of Mars for the second special, with Lindsay Duncan, and 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who) for Tennant's two-part Christmas finale. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I got a question, how did this particular tv guide got the title from and why is it the only i can find reporting it? As i sorta typed earlier and Ckatz typed also, we have to wait and get more relible sources to confirm the title and judging by the closing credits of The Next Doctor we may not have to wait long. Pro66 (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purposes the only question we need to answer is whether Total TV Guide is a reliable source or not. I suggest we continue the discussion about the title at Talk:2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) (or Talk:The Waters of Mars, depending on where it's been moved to when you read this). :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

TT, you claim I'm "misinterpreting" the title... how is treating material in a "From the Rumour Mill" section as being speculative "misinterpreting"?!? As I said earlier, why are there no official sources to confirm this? More to the point, why the rush'? Are we that desperate to name an article that - as yet - has little or no content that we have to grab the first title we see in a non-official source, without even waiting four days to see if a title is even mentioned at the end of "Planet"? Realistically, the article should be renamed "2009 xxxx special" (something that avoids the pre-Christmas issue mentioned above) or simply redirected to the list, given the lack of detail available. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote. Then read what Matthew wrote. Then go over my comment one more time. It should make sense. The article, while titled "Rumour Mill" to emphasise its concentration on the dichotomy between rumour and reality, makes a clear and visible distinction between the two. Rumours are clearly marked (the word "RUMOUR" is used, in large yellow text). ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In that particular article, the new title is stated as fact; the actual rumours are labelled as such. I have to agree that this is a reliable source and that there is no resaon to doubt it. — Edokter • Talk • 20:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

TT, I read all the comments, gosh, I even looked at the scan and did a couple of web and news searches before reverting the move. You're asserting that the first paragraph of the "Rumour Mill" article is reliable. However, note that it describes the episode as a "three-part special" and a "trilogy" (which Wikipedia's stub article contradicts with Davies' SFX Magazine note that it is not a three-parter) and as airing "over Christmas", which our article again contradicts based on Davies' BBC Breakfast statement that it will air in "November-ish". So, is the first paragraph of the Totally TV article reliable (in which case, we should dump the text sourced from Davies' statements) or is it unreliable because Davies contradicts key sections of it? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

2nd special christmas 2009?

This page suggests that the second special is christmas 2009 - should the article be changed? 86.131.231.218 (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems official enough, but probably best to wait for official BBC announcement. They're making The Cell 2? Dear God...magnius (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem official enough at all! Is there any indication that it's a reliable source? As opposed to a self-published source? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I just meant that it seems like an official enough source of casting news. The date is of course open to question. magnius (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

But official would be the BBC. This is just "a website" - why is there any reason to think of them as reliable and gospel? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Before Christmas period

In the most recent Doctor Who Magazine, Russell T Davies announced, on page 5 no less, that:

"The next three Specials will be shown in the second half of the year (...) it was said, in some interviews, that all three would air around Christmas time, but plans have changed since then (...) obviously, we can't give away exact dates yet, except to say that you should be seeing Episode 4.16 before the Christmas period. So there's not quite so long to wait!"

How do we incorporate this into the article? Thelb⁴ 14:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In tonight's confidential, it mentioned that one of the specials is in autumn, and the final two are christmas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.140.234 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Shada

What is the rational for including Shada in the story count?--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

From the article: "The three-digit story numbers are not official designations but are merely to serve as a guide to where the story stands in the overall context of the programme. There is some dispute about, for example, whether to count Season 23's The Trial of a Time Lord as one or four serials, and whether the uncompleted Shada should be included. The numbering scheme used here reflects that used in sources such as The Discontinuity Guide, Outpost Gallifrey and DVD releases." Seems reasonable to me. Maccy69 (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, half of them include it, half don't. Hmm... Sceptre ^(talk) 00:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be a lot of work to change the numbering to remove Shada. What would be gained by doing this? As far as I know, there are no official episode numbers - so numbering is only an aid to navigating through the stories. In my view it works equally well with or without Shada being counted - and we may as well leave things as they are. Maccy69 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not that hard to change.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The story numbering is also on every individual episode article, so you'd have to change all the articles from Shada onwards (and deal with the possibility of people trying to revert). If you want to do this, then I'd suggest you move this discussion to WP:WHO since the change will have to be coordinated across so many articles. Maccy69 (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should be so specific as to the story count in the first para of the intro; we should replace "204 stories" with "some 201-204 stories" (or whatever the precise numbers people think encompass all possibilities) and a footnote referring to the imprecision caused by the disputes as to whether to include Trial and Shada etc. We should also give a rationale as to why a story is numbered in the list or not. I propose we say that a story has been numbered in the list if it has been regarded as a separate story in any of the sources cited or treated as a separate story in any video or DVD published (the latter means including Infinite Quest in the story total). Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is probably as offical things are gonna get on this. As you can see, the region 1 DVD release of Survival (and the other DVD releases in that region as well) includes Shada and counts Trial as four stories in the numbering. Davhorn (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Individual intra-table headings for each special in the specials tables?

I edited the article to delete the said headings because they appeared to me to be unnecessary and duplicative as the same information was already or could easily be placed in the tables themselves and their immediate introductions. As well as usefully shortening the article, it seemed to me that the resulting versions (which you can see here) were clearer. Edokter (of whom I have no criticism :) ) reversed the changes on the basis that "there are HTML anchors to facilitate incoming section links, they are not "duplicate" info". I have posted this here partly for clarification (what incoming section links?) and partly to canvas opinion as to whether my changes were an improvement to the article itself and whether the incoming links could not usefully be changed to the individual, fairly small, sections containing the respective tables - thereby enabling my changes? (As I don't know what the incoming links are, I have no concluded opinion on the second question.) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Numbering of Doctor Who stories

Apparently, I inadvertantly walked into a veritable minefield just now. When "Planet of the Dead" was pubicized by the BBC as the 200th Doctor Who story, and there was indeed a breakdown of the 200 stories in the most recent issue of Doctor Who Magazine, which is an official publication and a reputable source I would think, it seemed needlessly confusing and misleading for the Wikipedia article to go with a numbering system that was by its own admission arbitrary and based on reference books at least several years old. Surely it would be less confusing for users of Wikipedia who come to read and research "Doctor Who" to have the story numbers coincide with the current numbering system put forth in Doctor Who Magazine and the BBC.

Sadly, my efforts to update the page, and the related individual story pages was not seen as prudent by another Wikipedia user, who suggested that I reach a consensus amongst the users of the Doctor Who wikigroup. If one is concerned about the sheer amount of time and energy that needs to be put into such a project, it took me all of 30 minutes. It took less time than that for someone else to change it back, so it seems that the act of changing isn't the real issue. I'm not that invested in this issue, if it really is a huge matter of importance for others. I just found it needlessly confusing having story numbers that were out of sync with what Doctor Who Magazine was saying, and in the wake of the big 200th story, it seemed really odd that Wikipedia felt it should be 204. Can we look at this issue and come to a consensus? While at one time the need to arbitrarily number the stories might have seemed better than nothing, in the face of the new information, I really think we should renumber the stories, and err on the side of being less confusing and more in sync with current data. Thank you. Adamsappleturnover (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree. The Wiki page for Planet_of_the_Dead says that that story was advertised as #200, and that the episode contained references to "200." Russell T Davies suggests that Trial of a Time Lord should count as 4 stories, not 1, and that Utopia should count on its own. That would add 4 stories to the list before Planet of the Dead, making this #200 on the list. Isn't the executive producer / writer of the series a legitimate source for taking something (such as episode count) as canon?

Simply put -- R.T.Davies says in Doctor Who Magazine that POTD was 200, as do references within the script of the episode itself. Why should wikipedia overrule them?????

Should be changed. Hazelrenfield (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a little correction, adding four stories before "Planet of the Dead" will make it 208, not 200 (it's currently listed as 204). Besides, Trial is already counted as four stories, so "Utopia" will just bump it up to 205. DonQuixote (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to get it to be 200 and match the idea that Utopia is a separate story, we'd have to take out "Shada" and make "The Trial of a Time Lord" one story. The fact that RTD prefers to think of "Trial" as four stories and Utopia as separate means that, for him, "Planet of the Dead" is number 205 or 204 (if you don't count Shada). Honestly, I don't think it matters what numbering system is used - it's just a guide to where the episodes sit in the overall history of the programme (most useful in the DVD list, I think). There is no official numbering system to follow, as RTD confirm in that same DWM - the whole thing is pretty well summed up here here. I don't see how being different to DWM is confusing - this is a general encyclopedia, not a resource for DWM readers (who, frankly, are unlikely to be that confused anyway). Also, the numbering affects more than just this article, so it's probably best to continue the discussion here. Maccy69 (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This would be confusing to those who are trying to make a list on their own of DW stories, especially if one goes and picks up "The Trial of a Time Lord" on DVD, which on the box lists the stories as 144-147. --Paploo (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the rough consensus over at WT:WHO was to make the change, so now it has happened. There are notes on this page and the DVD list about the difference in Region 1 numbering (and it is only Region 1 DVDs that have numbers). I really don't understand your point about people trying to make a list on their own either. There's a full list here, which explains how the numbering is worked out. And it's not as if either system changes the order of the stories. Maccy69 (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The two most easily found episode guides on the net which include episode numbers are this one and Outpost Gallifrey's one. (http://www.gallifreyone.com/epguide.php) The latter has existed for many years. To make the wiki list confusingly inconsistent with the other main source is the opposite of what an encyclopedia should do. Put "episode 143 doctor who" into google and what's the top result? "Amazon.com: Doctor Who - Revelation of the Daleks (Episode 143". Not "The Trial of a Time Lord", which is 144-147. It would be better to remove that column altogether than to use entries which conflict with Outpost Gallifrey, Amazon.com, and every other use for decades. Kremmen (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Outpost Gallifrey is a fan site, its list is no longer maintained and is not easy to find at all (there's no direct link to it from http://www.gallifreyone.com/). And why would anyone use amazon.com as a resource to try and work out a story number? Why, indeed, would anyone ever Google "episode 143 doctor who"? That numbering only applies to R1 (ie US) DVD releases, it's not official - and this is a UK programme. I don't see this causing any problems at all for the general reader, the list gives them an impression of the position of each story in the overall run. They are told that there are different ways of counting the stories. Why should a small variation with Outpost Gallifrey bother them? What makes you think that, even if they were aware of the OG guide, they'd even notice the difference? Maccy69 (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not easy to find at all? You're kidding. How do you think people use the web? Search engines. Put "doctor who episode guide" into google and see what the two top two entries are: This wiki article and Outpost Gallifrey. Why would people use Amazon? Because they do. Media (esp. books, but not exclusively) get looked up on Amazon all the time simply because it's such a huge repository of information. Any use one might have for the episode number is totally blown by using a numbering scheme that differs from most of what is already on the net. It's worse than useless. I have a plain-text episode listing from 1990 that lists Revelation of the Daleks as Episode 143. If this re-numbering makes this wiki article inconsistent with every episode guide that has existed in over 20 years, how is that useful? Kremmen (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a myth in itself. I have a copy of the 1994 (fourth) edition of Jean-Marc Lofficer's Doctor Who Programme Guide to hand, along with the 1981 paperback edition, which is probably historically the single most influential Doctor Who story guide. And neither edition uses numbers. Nor do most others like the 1998 Television Companion. Even the 1972 & 1976 editions of The Making of Doctor Who, printed before any of the contentious cases came along, doesn't use numbers. So what numbering there is is actually quite a minority use - note that the Region 2 DVDs, in the country of origin, don't give numbers and the Trial release does not really commit itself on the "one story or four?" question. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree that numbering is a minority use. Not including it at all would be quite sensible. Let me fix my question, which was apparently inadequately phrased for you: If this re-numbering makes this wiki article inconsistent with every episode guide that has existed in over 20 years and that included numbering, how is that useful? Kremmen (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there are two different numbering systems, each used by a reliable source. One was used in The Discontinuity Guide, the Outpost Gallifrey guide, and the Region 1 classic series DVDs. Another is used by Doctor Who Magazine. Whichever system this page uses, it will contradict a reliable source. So if we're going to number the stories, we have to choose. Personally, my preference was to remove the numbers altogether, as I don't think they're terribly useful. But in discussion at the Wikiproject, a consensus emerged to use the newer DWM numbering. Of course, consensus can change. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a line of thinking here that there is a "correct" numbering scheme. There is not - anyone can suggest any numbering scheme they like. I don't see why we should go with the most recently devised numbering scheme rather than the tradionally-upheld one, as that requires some considerable editing of these numbers of the wikipedia pages, but if someone wants to do it (and cause some confusion which has already started resulting in people changing those numbers BACK according to their own sources), then so be it. No matter what numbering scheme is used on wikipedia, it's likely someone will disagree, because the fact is that there is no truly canonical way to do it. Luminifer (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We have just changed it to match the Doctor Who Magazine list, see Wikipedia_talk:WHO#Story_numbers for the details. I agree that it probably wasn't essential that we did change it - but it's done now and, by the same token, there's no compelling reason to change it again. Maccy69 (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And incidentally, the other numbering system is retained at Doctor Who DVD releases, since it's still used on the R1 DVDs. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Christmas Specials - TBC or TBA?

In the article, the Christmas Specials are listed as "TBC (Part 1)" and "TBC (Part 2)". Shouldn't it rather be "TBA (Part 1)" and "TBA (Part 2)"? My thinking behind this is that the titles may already have been confirmed, just not yet announced. Thelb⁴ 21:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we need either? I tend not to use eihter TBA or TBC; they sound like a desease. — Edokter • Talk • 22:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

TBC is "to be casted" and TBA is "to be announced", isn't it? They are different to each other for the producers but to the fans they produce a similar result. User:Topsaint User talk:Topsaint 01:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding would be TBC is to be confirmed and TBA is to be announced. We might say TBC if there have been unconfirmed rumours. Edgepedia (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Another one is that TBC is "to be classified" but I don't think that this is the case and "to be confirmed" is the likely choice. So one is TBC is more inhouse knowledge and TBA is public knowledge. So it is best to leave things as they are until they are otherwise from reliable sources.User:Topsaint User talk:Topsaint 16:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Autumn 09"

Can people please not use seasonal termings. It's as annoying as all hell - considering that right now it IS autumn 09, and it took me 5 minutes before I realized that England is on the other side of the equator. Use the term "3rd quarter" PLEASE! --210.9.138.6 (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, and backed up by the Wikipedia guideline WP:SEASON. However, "3rd quarter" sounds a bit awkward in this context (it sounds like something out of a budget plan, not a television schedule). How would people feel about "c. November"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My initial thought were: "I think Autumn is a perfectly acceptable term for an article about a UK TV programme. It is also the term that executive producer Julie Gardner used in the cited reference. "xx quarter" is not a common usage in the UK and would be more confusing for more readers than Autumn is. Also Autumn conceivable covers September, which is in the 3rd quarter and October and November, which are in the 4th - so "3rd quarter" is not an accurate representation of what Gardner was saying. Both the text above the table and The Waters of Mars make it clear that the programme will be scheduled before Christmas and Russell T Davies expects it to be around November." As I was typing Josia replied - and I didn't know about WP:SEASON. I'm fine with "c. November" - but would definitely be opposed to 3rd quarter (TBA or Autumn being preferable to that). If we go with "c. November" the reference should be changed to one of the Russell T Davies interviews where he says that. Maccy69 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It was past 1 in the morning, I wasn't thinking straight when I said "3rd quarter" (not realizing it crosses over quarters). Wikipedia is riddled with this kind of terminology with regards to TV programming and movies (in part because that's often how they're announced) - it's just not appropriate. To me Autumn is, and always has been March, April, May. I don't instinctively think of the Spring months when I think of Autumn! --210.9.138.6 (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to worry, Josiah came up with a much better solution anyway, which I've implemented. It now says "c. November". I agree about the seasonality thing, I was just worried that we'd make it less clear by trying to fix it. Luckily there was a better alternative. Maccy69 (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh and we'd need to change the infobox at Waters of Mars as well. I say be bold and do it Josiah, it can always be reverted if someone has an issue with it. I'll give it a while, and if you haven't made the change then I will. Maccy69 (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've made the change. Maccy69 (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. (I was working on something else just then.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Five Doctors - Season 20?

The Five Doctors is listed as part of Season 20, as it "is considered part of the 20th season, although it was broadcast only a few weeks before the start of Season 21." But all the recent Christmas Specials are listed separately from their respective series, even though it is basically the same situation. Should The Five Doctors not be listed under "Anniversary Special (1983)" or something? Seems like we implicated a set of rules for recent specials, but forgot to incorporate the classic series. Pdb781 (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Or the specials of the new series could be put together with the rest of their seasons to compress the list a bit. "Attack of the Graske" and "Music of the Spheres" fit better with the rest of the unusual ones under "Other stories". Should probably move The Infinite Quest down there as well. Talking of compressing, are the names of every episode for the first three seasons really necessary? They're already in their respective articles. Davhorn (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think all the episode titles for the first three seasons are necessary, as it means you have to count the titles to know how many episodes are in the serial. I don't think specials should be listed as part of each series though; the whole point of them is that they are free from the continuity of a weekly series. That's why I suggested that The Five Doctors be moved out of Season 20. And yes, "Attack of the Graske" and "Music of the Spheres" should probably be moved down to the "Other Stories" section. They're not episodes in the regular sense (breaking the fourth wall and talking to the audience almost the entire time), although I'm not so sure about The Infinite Quest. Pdb781 (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, The Infinite Quest is in a grey area. The specials like they are now repeats info. For example, the header for "Attack of the Graske" lists it as "Interactive Episode (2005)", but the episode column also lists it as a "14-minute interactive episode". It should be possible to remove the redundancy at least. Davhorn (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

But what do you put instead? 14-minute episode? That implies it's just a regular installment. Anyway, all these questionable episodes were put into the main list for a reason, so we can't just start moving them around. Do you agree we can move The Five Doctors out of Season 20 though? Just for consistancy... Pdb781 (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If Graske moved down to the "other stories", its header could be removed and "14-minute interactive episode" used without any redundancy... I agree the specials should be consistent, and BBC's episode guide lists the special as a separate entry so we should probably do it too. Davhorn (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Fifth Doctor Handbook lists it seperately as well - let's do it! I also agree that Graske should move down to "other stories" Etron81 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and move Five Doctors myself - I've also updated the note. Etron81 (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Tonight's the Night added to List

So should the special 'Doctor Who' scene be added to the list? Obviously it's not canon, so place it under 'The Curse of Fatal Death' entry? 123.50.142.2 (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that - I would think it's skin to "A Fix With Sontarans" and we have that listed there Etron81 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Should it not be given its own page as well? "A Fix with Sontarans" has one after all. Pdb781 (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it should list John Barrowman as playing himself.... 24.183.22.42 (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it deserves one too. Even though it was rather funny, I think they should have made it cannon. Perhaps it could be merged into Tonight's the Night (TV series).Whoniverse93 21:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a thought

I've been thinking, should we create an article for the 2009/10 specials? I think it be quite nice to have a more indepth artcle about the specials. Pro66 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you going to say? Why not create one in user space and see what people think? Edgepedia (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fair as all of series 1-4 have their own pages.Whoniverse93 21:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

When did this change to season?

This is a British TV series. We say series, not season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.73.151 (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that the word season was being used for everything up to and including McCoy's tenure. I think this should be changed to fit in with the British use of the term "series" over "season". magnius (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've only been around for just over a year, and we've used season for the class series and series for the revived series for a least that time. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Manual_of_style#Terminology. Edgepedia (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Season" is a longstanding usage for Doctor Who, dating at least back to the 1981 Doctor Who Programme Guide by Jean-Marc Lofficier. It's been continued in the modern era to distinguish "Season One" (1963–64) from "Series One" (2005). This distinction is used by all the reliable sources, including Doctor Who Magazine and the BBC's classic Doctor Who website.

This question comes up all the time. We should probably have a FAQ. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed it's been changed. It's quite confusing to have two Series 1's etc. I think it should be changed back, besides the Doctor Who Classic Series website has them listed in 'Seasons' not 'Series'. Whoniverse93 talk? 15:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already changed it back... Etron81 (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The use of 'season' in place of 'series' is becoming more prevalent in the BBC, possibly due to the hiring of quite a few American managers in the BBC. However as someone who started watching Doctor Who in the 60s in B&W, I know that the word 'Season' was never used, it was always 'series' Bear in mind that WP is not actually a place to impose American/British/Indian English on the rest of the world. I would never change the spelling of a word in an article, predominantly set in the USA or being USA-centric, i.e.'favor' and 'favour' but to use 'Season' when writing about a British production, is factually incorrect. Check the Radio Times? Etron81, given you were only born in 1981 - based on your age - and are an American, you are actually trying to enforce, your POV on the rest of the world. It is incorrect, to refer to the Dr. Who series as seasons, simply because it sits better with your nomenclature. To say that "...it's been standard since 1981, by some people (non-English people at that) doesn't make it correct. I'll give it a week to be convinced, then I will change it to correct English nomenclature. Ragebe (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not enforcing a POV based on age or nationality - I am merely following the MOS of the Doctor Who WikiProject. If concensus changes, I would be more than happy to use "series" for the classic yearly blocks of episodes. I would suggest you take your arguments to the talk page of the WP, as many many more articles than just this would be affected by such a change Etron81 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"I'll give it a week to be convinced, then I will change it to correct English nomenclature." Not without consensus you won't, otherwise you will be hypocritically guilty of enforcing your own POV on the article, and doing so will constitute vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Manual_of_style#Terminology as previously advised. magnius (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Season" on official BBC site Doctor Who: Classic Series. magnius (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Not without consensus you won't, otherwise you will be hypocritically guilty of enforcing your own POV on the article.." Yes, that's a valid point. However, I do think that enforcing - what is in effect - an imperialistic view of using USA nomenclature on a British production, in which the majority of people familiar with the subject, would be of British origin, based upon the views of a very few commentators, amounts to a very dictatorial standard. Bear in mind that the whole point of WP, is to allow view-points from all over the world and forcing Britsh people, to read about a British production, using American nomenclature, amounts to imposing a philosophy, more akin to European Empire building in the 19th century. Ragebe (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but it's a myth that season/series is a UK/US difference. "Season" was used in Who production paperwork right from the beginning and is the term used in numerous reference books and articles by British authors. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Americans use Season because their programmes go on over usually half of the year, therefore it covers a season, hence the Seasons, while British programmes usually broadcast in a shorter time. The old Doctor Who used to run episodes over a longer period of time and never used to be like a Series (usually every week). Whoniverse93 talk? 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Americans use Season because their programmes go on over usually half of the year, therefore it covers a season..." Um, there are 4 x seasons in a year, or roughly 3 x months each, or a quarter of a year?

The Doctor Who episodes - that I watched, religously - in the 1960s and 1970s, had 4 to 8 episodes per series and started just after tea-time (or 5 o'clock-ish for the younger viewer, just before The Clangers) and lasted for half an hour. Each episode, was broadcast on a weekly basis. I'm quite shocked at how poorly educated all you supposedly Doctor Who fanatics are about this. It's basic facts, easily found with a search of the internet. Ragebe (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not stupid! Plus I was taking the dates shown of the first season of Doctor Who from this article so if I'm wrong with that then the article is wrong! Whoniverse93 talk? 00:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not confuse "series" with "serials", as the classic seasons are often called. We call them "seasons" because most sources call them seasons. Wikiepdia does not offer a channel for viewpoints, 'imperialistic' or ohterwise; we only deal with verifiable information. — Edokter • Talk • 00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Matt Smith = Series one?

Someone just told me that DWM stated that Matt Smith's first series of Doctor Who will oficially be listed as "Series One" because of the new Doctor/Showrunner...does anyone have a copy of the latest issue?

"The new series of Doctor Who, the 31st since the programme began way back in 1963, will officially be produced as 'Series One'. reflecting the change in Doctor and Production team."

- The Official Doctor Who Magazine (issue 410, June 2009)

Apparently...

magnius (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly strongly doubt it. So far, it's always been referred to as "Series Five". However, I don't have the new DWM (I thought it was out next week), so I can't verify this until later. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've just checked the DWF. Apparently, what you say is true. However, it's only internal and I am sure that it'll be referred to as "season 5" in all over contexts. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

probably best to wait and see how it's promoted at the time - they may still release it as "series 5" come March 2010. 86.131.237.120 (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Other stories" should include BBC7 serials and other broadcast radio dramas

Whilst I appreciate that this page should not include all the spin-off CDs produced by Big Finish et al (List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish already does this admirably), I do think that those stories which have been broadcast by the BBC (and only those broadcast by the BBC) should be briefly listed, or at least mentioned, in the Other Stories section. This would include the Eighth Doctor BBC7 radio plays (the four broadcast Charley Pollard serials and the three seasons of Lucie Miller stories thus far) and the Third Doctor radio plays The Paradise of Death and The Ghosts of N-Space. Apologies if this has been discussed before; I checked back two archives' worth but found no recent discussion on this. Andrew Oakley (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree - In fact I had planned on being bold and doing it myself, but hadn't gotten to it yet... Etron81 (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just added them! Etron81 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratings Column?

As the List of Torchwood episodes and the List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials] both have ratings columns now, I've been playing with the idea of adding it to the Who one as well. I've done Season 1, 24 and Series 1 in my sandbox so that I could gather comment. They show how it would work with the early 60s epsiodes with indiviudual titles, the later classic episodes, and the new series. The only ones I'm not too sure about are the later classic episodes - I worry that it's not clear that the 4 or so figures are for each part of the serial - any suggestions? Etron81 (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Epsiodes

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change "epsiodes" to "episodes" - thanks. 58.8.10.182 (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please specify it more accurately like in which section it is located or something such. This time I resolved it using my browser's search tool. --Srinivas→ 08:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to confess it never occurred to me that anyone would do anything other than go straight to it by using their browser's search tool! 58.8.10.182 (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Series 5/Series 1?

The new DWM (July 2009) apparently says that the upcoming Eleventh Doctor season will be produced AND marketed/promoted as 'Series 1', not as 'Series 5'. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The has previously been discussed and it was concluded that this is probably just for production use, it will still be (and is) known as series 5 to the general public. magnius (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it was previously discussed before the 23 July 2009 issue of DWM stated that the new season would be "Produced and promoted as Series One". This is now the only verifiable source on the subject. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The production code will start again at 1.1 - whether or not this means the public will refer to it at series 1 I don't know - but this is what the articals are suggesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.91.142 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Other stories"

Can anyone tell me why the Doctor Who scene from "Extras" isn't in this section? MultipleTom (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it's not produced by the Doctor Who producers. — Edokter • Talk • 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Were "Dimensions in Time" or "Curse of the Fatal Death" produced by Doctor Who producers? (I realise that Moffat has since become DW showrunner, but he had not previously worked on the show.) MultipleTom (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they were produced under the Doctor Who umbrella. Extras however is a totally different show that happened to spoof the Tenth Doctor... with the cooporation of David Tennant. — Edokter • Talk • 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Does the Tonight's the Night "episode" really fit under that umbrella? MultipleTom (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratings Column?

This got moved to the archive w/o comment - does this mean that there's no interest in adding this? Etron81 (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As the List of Torchwood episodes and the List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials] both have ratings columns now, I've been playing with the idea of adding it to the Who one as well. I've done Season 1, 24 and Series 1 in my sandbox so that I could gather comment. They show how it would work with the early 60s epsiodes with indiviudual titles, the later classic episodes, and the new series. The only ones I'm not too sure about are the later classic episodes - I worry that it's not clear that the 4 or so figures are for each part of the serial - any suggestions? Etron81 (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Story Number Discrepancies

There is a story number discrepancy starting with Shada, which on this list is un-numbered. While working on my video list, noted that The Leisure Hive is numbered by the BBC as 'Story No. 110'. Everything I have in my collection before Shada matches between what the BBC prints on the DVD cover, but after Shada, everything is off by one. I don't have edit rights since the page is protected, so someone with edit rights may want to fix this. Shada should be story 109, and everything after should be incremented up by one until szeason 23 (Trial of a Time of a Time Lord). DVD cover numbering indicates that each story is incrementally numbered, which then affects every story that comes after that season. Jdsmke (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we know that the DVD numbering diverges. We deliberately went with the current system about three months ago due to most current counting systems treating "Planet of the Dead" as #200. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We may "know" that Planet of the Dead is #200, but we don't know any details for what's inbetween Horns of Nimon and that episode. For example, you could count Shada, and omit the FOX movie, and it would still be 200 episodes. You could omit both "movies" (FOX, Five Doctors), and Shada, and then count Trial of a Time Lord as four serials. It doesn't seem clear to me that the assumptions made make any more sense than some other system. Luminifer (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Question : if there is no canonical story #, why do we even have it listed? How is it helpful to anyone? Luminifer (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it got so far in production it's an outlier: footage from the serial actually exists, and quite a lot of it was incorporated into The Five Doctors. It would've actually been aired were it not for a BBC strike at the time. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

For those not familiar with past debates there is no official BBC numbering of the stories and all we have is the use by individual departments within the BBC to serve the purpose of the moment not to provide a definitive numbering system. Consequently there's sources in all directions - take for example the 1987 story Dragonfire. When it was first broadcast it was billed by the BBC as the 150th broadcast story, but this is counting The Trial of a Time Lord as four separate stories, contrary to how the BBC billed it in 1986. Now which is more important - not contradicting the detail of what was said in 1986 or getting some extra publicity for the series at a time when the ratings were low? In late 1993 the video release stated this in sleeve text on the back (although there's a huge history of errors there) but in 1998 the BBC published The Television Companion which explicitly stated that "it's the 150th story" is a myth. The text has since been placed on the BBC website - see [2]. The US DVD releases use a numbering system that makes Dragonfire the 151st story, but the UK DVD releases don't use this and the release of Trial is nicely ambiguous about whether it's one or four stories. And similarly when it comes to whether or not Shada is counted there is again ambiguity - The Television Companion basically doesn't but The Discontinuity Guide (which wasn't published by the BBC) does and the bulk importing of the text of both for the BBC website throws up a good number of contradictions.

And this is before we get to the problems of the new series, where AFAIK there aren't any story numbers on any DVDs, and there's heavy debate over whether Utopia is either the first episode of a three parter or a separate story that introduces the villain for the next story. Here the number lists start to run dry.

The current arrangement is the result of discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Story numbers where it was agreed to follow the list in a recent issue of Doctor Who Magazine as a consistent standard that handles all the issues rather than what would have to be a synthesis. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 Christmas specials

I suggest changing "TBA" to "The End of Time." That's the official title that was revealed at Comic Con 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamabunta (talk • contribs) 01:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Just like the 2008 Christmas special was called "Return of the Cybermen". Oh, wait. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not official just like User:Sceptre said about the "Return of the Cybermen". It could just be a tag line, it's best to wait until it's officially announced. Whoniverse93 talk? 09:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

minor edit

{{editsemiprotected}} there is an error at the end of the First doctor paragraph. Please change "end of episode 4" to "end of season 4". Thankyou. Johnstephen333 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's supposes to say Episode 4 since it is on about The Tenth Planet, Episode 4, Season 4. Whoniverse93 talk? 18:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the article. Whoniverse93 seems to be correct, that sentence wouldn't make as much sense with "season four" at the end. Celestra (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - the same request has been made previously (see Talk:List_of_Doctor_Who_serials/Archive_8#minor_correction - I wonder if there's some common mis-reading that could be tidied up (or perhaps this is the same anon editor returning)? Stephenb (Talk) 20:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I reworded it (but forgot to mention it here). Luminifer (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-count of individual episodes

I've counted each individual episode from Season One to Series Four three times, and I've counted 760 individual episodes, not 753. 80.177.217.162 (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - you're not counting Shada are you (6 unaired episodes)? I've done the count several times myself and I get 753. The count only goes up to Planet of the Dead (as everything after that hasn't aired yet), and doesn't include the 2 CIN specials, Attack of the Graske, Music of the Spheres or the Infinte Quest - based on Doctor Who Magazines count in their "Time Team" feature. 86.177.158.99 (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't included any of the mini-episodes, nor Shada. 80.177.217.162 (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Numbering descrepancies...

Numbering discrepancies... The problem lies in the fact that Shada is crucial to the plot. To leave it out would be like leaving excidus from the bible.

Also some of the box sets include only the number of the first story.

If you take this into account, you count up to Story # 160 the undisputed number for the movie since it came out.

Before renumbering everything, please be sure to check your facts.

I am not certain if I signed this properly...

Musheno

comment added by Musheno

Reverted. We had a discussion about this months ago which decided to switch to a more authoritative, less original-research laden numbering source. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Story numbers. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone should post an obvious link to that discussion at various places. I think it should even be in the article since it still involves original research (in deciding which numbering system is better - the one on official US DVDs, or a fan-based magazine) (as I've mentioned before). Luminifer (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is. And it isn't just a fan-based magazine, it's an official magazine that has a lot of input from the show's producers. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It may have input from current producers, but I doubt the people involved at the time of the start of the numbering discrepency were involved with this new numbering. There is also the question of whether the new producers' thoughts can be considered retroactively canon, considering the whole confusion over Richard E Grant, for instance. Since there is a considerably amount of disagreement here, much of it from people not involved in the original debate, I suggest it be reopened -- or that the numbering be removed entirely (since there IS no canonical number), or that we have multiple numbering schemes (to make the ambiguities clear). Luminifer (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would Shada count? It wasn't completed, and wasn't broadcast. How can a non-broadcast story be counted towards the numbering of broadcast stories? Shada can't be that critical to the plot of anything, as it was never broadcast. 86.177.158.99 (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Shada is in a kind of limbo because of that: they started filming, but never finished it. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the numbering for "broadcast stories", or for "recorded stories", or for "stories that have been released in some form, either broadcast or on video"? Luminifer (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Broadcast stories. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it for broadcast stories? Why is that the most meaningful number we can list there? For one thing, it means some stories have no numbers. Additionally, traditionally, these kinds of lists tend towards production numbering rather than broadcast numbering.Luminifer (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Question on nomenclature

I am not as versed in "Doctor Who" as some others here, so I thought I'd ask this question. I notice the primary titles in the list are often fairly recent, with "aka's" given below for clarification (many of which are older titles). I'm just wondering if (as I'm sure there probably was one) anyone who's worked in this project could point me towards any discussion(s) which took place with respect to deciding on which titles were to be used on Wikipedia. I'm just curious to see it; as when I look at this list I primarily want to see the "original" titles (by that I mean the title which could justifiably / reasonably be called the "first official," i.e., not [pre-]production working titles, etc.), rather than something which developed ~ 20 - 30 years later. To find these, I need to read through the individual serial's article. Knowing that the official article titles have been decided on, I wonder if it would be worthwhile to note somehow in this list which of the "aka's" is, in fact, the most justifiably "first official," or if there would be too much controversy / debate in trying to do so?

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 21:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

See Doctor Who title controversy for a starting point. DonQuixote (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

For Hartnell stories and Trial, the main title is the title used by the BBC on their website, and on official DVD, VHS or Audio CD releases. Other titles are usally working titles that were used at the time, and which some fans and sites still use to refer to those stories. For DW and the Silurians, the onscreen title was "Doctor Who and the Silurians" but some fans don't like "Doctore Who" being in the title asthe character's name is not Doctor Who, so just use The silurians. 188.220.182.146 (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

This article has been semiprotected for nearly 18 months now. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. As well as welcoming opinions of regular editors I've contacted Riana, the last protecting admin in the log for this page who is still (occasionally) active on Wikipedia. --TS 17:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be a bad idea. Whenever this page gets unprotected, it gets loads of unsourced speculation added, thus leading to re-protection, etc... Sceptre ^(talk) 19:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't you just remove the speculation? Semiprotection is for stopping severe vandalism, not good faith edits. --TS 19:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's at a level that it's frankly an annoyance to remove it. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If editing Wikipedia annoys you, go and do something else. This is a volunteer website. --TS 02:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a volunteer web site, one that relies on volunteers to operate. The regulars are expected to help out newbies and coach them in their mistakes as they learn the system. However, we are under no obligation to have to continually clean up the mess when there is clearly a pattern of consistent vandalism, nonsenses edits, and the like. In such cases, as with popular articles, the minor inconvenience of a new user having to register is by far preferable to the damage done to our readers who have to put up with articles that are frequently disrupted. In such cases, longer-term semi-protection is warranted. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought this article had been protected because lots of rumors were added to it. Now you claim that it's because of "a pattern of consistent vandalism, nonsenses edits, and the like." Which is true, the statement by Sceptre or your statement now? --TS 03:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're misinterpreting my general statement, which speaks to situations where extended protection is warranted. Repeated addition of rumours and speculation would fit under what I described. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

<< I agree with Sceptre and Ckatz. Particularly now, if we unprotect, there will be a slew [I do like that word!] of drivelly edits speculating on the Master, and the final episode title, and the Rani, and Ood Sigma, and the regeneration, and Rose, and River Song, and it's just really, really boring. Tony: it's not in good faith much of the time. There are abundant [also a good word...] edit-notices and notes and signs and templates warning people about the fact that their content has to be verifiable, yet some revert-war to replace it.

It's dull as ditchwater entering that fight, and why should we? It can remain protected perfectly well, and that is exactly what semi-protection is for (or so the many protecting admins thought). ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 08:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Riana hasn't edited for over a month, so I wouldn't expect any help from that quarter. I'll try to notify the admin next down the list. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 08:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as examples, all from before semi-protection; this user can have had no good-faith reason to ignore the notice that he obviously read. This has all the hallmarks of something completely made up. This speaks for itself. Yet another case of edit-warring and ignoring notices... and the vast, vast majority these types of edits stopped after the semi- was added. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 08:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As a former user of wiki - I would add to what those examples of the above with othjer.s Numerous times unsourced, unofficial, rumoured and stupid titles were added deptir the source of the article being <!-- DO NOT ADD A TITLE WITHOUT A RELIABLE SOURCE-->?TBA<!--DO NOT ADD A TITLE WITHOUT ARELIABLE SOURCE - ignoring two instances of a notice telling them not to add something without a reliable source. And it wasn't just title, it was characters returning, enemies returning. Unprotect the article and within 24 hours, 12 unknown unsers will have all added an unoficial title for the christmas episode, unsourced dates for upcoming episodes, and titles for all episodes next year - and all been reverted - and then two sets of hidden notices will be put up - and they will be ignored - and the article will be put up for protection again. 188.220.182.146 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this is a wiki. It is intended to be edited. If something unwanted is added, it can be removed. Ignoring or even removing a notice written by another user isn't vandalism. If this article has been semiprotected solely to stop unwanted (unsourced, etc) edits being made, that is an abuse of the semiprotection policy.

Secondly, conditions pertaining at one time often do not prevail forever. If this article is to be kept semiprotected as an exception to policy, then we should periodically test it to see if the exception is still necessary.

I suggest that we unprotect for a period of 24 hours. If you are minded to oppose this suggestion because some unwanted edits may be made, please consider that the amount of damage that can be done in 24 hours is limited because the article can be reverted to the state it was in before unprotection, and any valid edits can then be added back. --TS 10:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected Normally I would have preferred to ask the protecting admin, but since he has been indefinitely blocked, I am willing to give this un-protection a test run. If excessive levels of vandalism resume, please make a re-protection request at WP:RFPP. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And as predicted - unsourde title and air date added, sourced date removed, second unsourced title added by IP who then re-adds it after it is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.79.22 (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Predict all you want, but please try to remain civil about it. A user does not need a username for the requirement of civility. Fix what needs to be fixed and don't bite the newbies. 173.12.172.149 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no biting going on, just someone pointing out facts. I can see that page protection will need to be re-added within a very short period of time due to vandalism and unnsourced changes. magnius (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Series 5/Series 1

Given the clapperboard evidence from yesterday's filming [3] that the new Matt Smith season is indeed to be called 'Series 1' should we now change the title of the 'Series 5 (2010)' section? Cuddlyopedia (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Have there been any kinds of statements to this effect in articles or anything? I'd be hesitant to do so without an official statement, as they could've been simply reusing a clapboard from Chris Eccleston's time, no? Plus, I don't know whether what it says on the clapboard should be treated as official - heck, IIRC, in some of Tennant's "video diaries", there was at least an episode or two whose name changed between filming and air. Gah, I just realized - not to shoot you down, but without an official statement from the BBC (or reports in other RS like the media), I don't think we can use visual evidence from the clapboard - I would argue that runs afoul of WP:OR, in that we're drawing conclusions from the evidence. umrguy42 14:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've struck the above, finally got around to looking at the main article (I blame being too early for me before) - I still don't think that the clapboard can be relied on, as it tends towards WP:OR on our part, and I'd still prefer an official statement from the BBC before we change it - things could still change before air. Personally, I would argue for leaving it stand more or less as-is in the article right now, where it's mentioned. umrguy42 16:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment we seem to have evidence that they are calling it series 1 in production. But we have no indication how the BBC are going to market it (for example at http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/episodes/). How they market it will become it's common name, which is what we should use here with the necessary disambiguation. At the moment I'm for leaving it as it is. Edgepedia (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that the evidence we have for the 2010 season being known as Series 1 is far from conclusive, it is more evidence than we have for it being called Series 5! I wasn't proposing that we rename the section to Series 1 but that we rename if from Series 5 - to 2010 season or something. It seems the current title was just an assumption that naming would follow on from the RTD era. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Series 5 is a properly cited number, no reason to change yet unless the BBC say otherwise. magnius (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Magnius, we have a number of refs from 27 onwards which refer to the 2010 series as series five. Edgepedia (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but how old are these references? Number 27 is from two years ago. If they're before the DWM announcement, then they should be disregarded as out-of-date.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is pretty conclusive evidence that it will be called Series 1 - issue 411, page 5 of Doctor Who Magazine states unambiguously, "The new series of Doctor Who will be produced and promoted as Series One." The article should be changed as "Series 5" is simply incorrect - it's the 31st series to be produced, but is Series One to the new production team.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How about going for Seasons 27 to 31 - the number reset at Doc 9 is confusing enough, without having yet another reset, and yet another series 1. I mean when the articles start for the episodes, you'll have two different articles that say "x was the xth episode of Series 1" - which is just going to confuse readers. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We can't just use whatever numbering we wish, unfortunately - the BBC marketed the re-launch of the series as Series 1, 2, 3, and 4. Hence, we have to call it what the BBC does. Although I agree, it could get confusing. Hopefully, the BBC will come out with a better way of describing it. umrguy42 21:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

But then it has to be Series 1 (what it's being called) rather than 5 until we get indication otherwise. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With the correct reliable sources (and I'm assuming DWM falls under such), yup, we do. Speaking of RS's, does a picture of the clap(per)board being hosted on someone's Photobucket account really qualify as such? I'm not saying it's wrong, or manipulated, or what-have-you, I'm just saying that as far as WP's rules on primary sources go, I don't know if it qualifies as something we can rely on. umrguy42 21:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I should add to my last comment here, looks like Edokter has already removed the photobucket image, I just thought it'd be good to have a reminder? discussion? clarification? whatever, here. umrguy42 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Bias

Wiki has a clear anti-IP bias here. I've twice added "October 2009" for Dreamland based on a specific sentance "The first part of Dreamland will be available to watch on the BBC's red button service later this month". What's not clear about this? End of the month - october! First revert was "wrong Speials" )and the guy hasn't even explained that yet) second was "Not specific enough; subject to change" - how is it not specific enough? It's pretty clear. And it's a lot more specific than "November-ish" the reference for having November for Waters of Mars. subject to change? well so's the date for that - Even RTD wasn't sure that it would be November (hence the ish) - and the Christmas specials could be moved as well - they are subject to change - but no, those were added by users - they get to be allowed! What a disgrace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no bias here; it's a matter of interpretation. Unless a source specifically tells us which date (or month) the special becomes available, we cannot add it. "Later this month" does not tell us anything, as we'd have to guess what month the writer meant. — Edokter • Talk • 14:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What else is "this month" meant to mean. This month is october isn't it? And that doesn't answer the question of how "November ISH" is any more specific. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The two quotes from the references for Waters of Mars are "We think is in November" and "probably one in November-ish" - are those REALLY specific? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Edokter, you are incorrect. When "this month" is stated in a published source, "this month" unequivocally means "the month of publication of this source," except when otherwise indicated, i.e. by an editor's note or other contraindicatory information. 173.12.172.149 (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)