Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

BBC just found a LOT of long-lost Doctor Who eps

• Rumor of the Day: BBC just found a LOT of long-lost Doctor Who eps blastr.com. 91.39.75.215 (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC regarding John Hurt

Can people give their views on referring to the Hurt Doctor as a numberless incarnation for now? I'd like to see this changed as currently the article is seriously vague and based on nothing but speculation, and ignoring some of the facts given in the episode. If we can get some form of consensus to refer to him as "an unknown incarnation of The Doctor" then we'd be going somewhere. After all, the source cited containing the 'suggestion' is contradicted by a calamity of other sources, just as reliable, claiming him to be the true ninth Doctor.  drewmunn  talk  09:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you meant "the true Eighth Doctor" (that is, retconning away The Doctor played by Paul McGann in the 1996 film), rather than the Ninth Doctor (played by Christopher Eccleston in season 1 of the 2005 TV series). But that's not explicit. He could also be the Twelfth. (Or, considering the Great Intelligence's earlier allusion, he could be the Valeyard.) ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I meant the ninth (I'm only quoting sources, not expressing opinion). We can't make any conclusions of our own from anything said in the episode or otherwise inferred. As such, I propose referring to him only as the Hurt Doctor.  drewmunn  talk  20:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal of referring to the John Hurt Doctor as "an unknown incarnation of The Doctor" for the time being. This fits with the (currently) known facts, whereas calling him the Ninth or Twelfth Doctor seems to involve speculation (or original research). I also do not think he should be included as a "current" Doctor, as the evidence indicates he is only appearing in The Name of the Doctor and the 50th Anniversary Special. NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is illustrated here nicely. It's implied he's 'a' past incarnation of the timelord normally known as Doctor, but not which one. We can hazard a guess based on what's onscreen (I lean toward Sonic's interpretation myself) but that would be WP:OR 'and' there are other possible explainations that would fit what is stated. Rankersbo (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - While there is a great deal of speculation going on (some of it wild), there is no reliable source which answers the question. Till we know, "unknown" is a suitable descriptor. Andrewaskew (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The original idea for the show?

In 1960 when I was in junior school in south London, we had radio speakers in the upper year class room and each week we would get an episode of a radio show broadcast to our class. It was basically a history lesson but what would happen was a man and a boy and girl, would go back in time (somehow) and have an adventure with the people of that time, and often end up barely escaping at the end of the short show to their own time (the then present). Going back to the days of the Cavemen, like the first series of Dr Who, would have been a typical adventure for them. (Cyberia3 (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC))

That's just an explanation of the concept of time travel fiction, so it's very unlikely to be the specific thing that inspired the show.  drewmunn  talk  11:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

too long

hi im neutral reader of wikipedia and this feels like the weirdest thing to say about a wiki article, but i feel like im being killed by the text at the top above table of contents. maybe could add sub categories, maybe its just me idk ive read LOTS of english and german wiki pages(144dpi 1920x1200 24" nosquint text zoom lvl 195% everything else default), this is 1st time i feel uncomfortable to even look at keywords of the page. at the same time i have tabs of other wiki articles open and nothing wrong with them at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.208.250.87 (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. There are 599 words in the lead (the summary of the article that goes before the table of contents). The article itself is about 10k words long. I'm trying to understand how that is unusual. Edgepedia (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Having simulated your display settings as closely as I can, it takes only two scrolls to read the lede (hehe, that rhymes!) It's not meant to be really concise; many ledes are too short for their articles anyway, so this article more closely resembles what you'd find for an article this size. I'd suggest you try zooming out a little, maybe, or if that isn't possible, use accessibility software to make reading easier.  drewmunn  talk  13:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the OP: the lead section is unusually long in this article, and could do with being trimmed down. WP:LEADLENGTH suggests four paragraphs as a maximum for a lead section, and while this article complies with that guideline, those paragraphs are pretty long themselves. It could do with providing more of a general overview IMO, with more detail moved to the article proper; for example there is no need to list five different spin-offs in the lead. —me_and 13:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Is Doctor who a reboot, two series, or one long series with a break?

There is a current debate going on at the List_of_longest-running_TV_shows_by_category. Personally I see that the the two runs are continuous, rather than being a reboot or a new different series. Looking at the BBC website, they seem to treat them as all the same thing, and all the structure of the show, and the continuity of characters and actors points to them being connected, rather than a new distinct series. The reason it has popped up is as to whether Dr Who's long run as the longest SF show, should be listed as the original run (1963-1989) or the original run, and the current run (eg 1963-1989, 2005 - Present) If you feel like having a say, pop over to the talk section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_longest-running_TV_shows_by_category#Separate_the_two_Doctor_Who_series cheers! Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for bringing this up, I'll pop over and support it as a continuous run (with hiatus), as that is what it is.  drewmunn  talk  10:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who News

The current doctor, Matt Smith will have his 31st birthday on the 28th of October 2013. Be watching UKTV on foxtel for the fourth doctors episodes. By Thomas Patrick Brady,Aged 9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombr71 (talk • contribs)

Reader feedback: Needs a link to the season e...

24.18.236.102 posted this comment on 20 June 2013 (view all feedback).

Needs a link to the season episode lists, impossible to find here

List of Doctor Who serials is linked under the words ‘List of episodes’…

rumpelstilzchen (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There have been a number of these. Earlier today I posted on the Article Feedback talk page about the need for a FAQ ... the other very common one is More Pictures!!, which of course we can't have.

I remember the List of Episodes link in the infobox being bold ... or am I wrong. What about changing this, to try and highlight the link? Edgepedia (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Checking the number of page views, Doctor Who got nearly 2.2 million over the last ninety days and List of Doctor Who serials nearly 1.8 million. It does seem like a lot of people know where to look. Edgepedia (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hamlet

Recently there seems to have been some dispute about the following claim: "No full series was filmed in 2009 due to actor David Tennant's commitments to Hamlet". At the moment, I've added a "[citation needed]" tag, but I believe this claim to be incorrect. From the 2nd edition of Russell T. Davies "The Writer's Tale" (p. 216), I quote: "Julie's outpouring only came about because I happened to mention that I was worried that David personally was taking a lot of flak for the 'gap year', like we'd done it in order for him to do Hamlet. In fact, we'd decided to pause anyway, ages ago - a decision taken with him, yes, but the Hamlet offer came up afterwards, when he knew that he had free time; we decided first". (my bold). I suggest we remove that sentence from the article Stephenb (Talk) 14:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I was going to cite Writer's Tale as well, and at the time of the announcement, it wasn't even known for certain if Tennant would be in Hamlet. In fact, the earliest article I can find that mentions the possible correlation of the gap and Tennant's RSC role being more than just timing is an article in the Guardian. Prior to that, most reports state that there will be a gap, and that Tennant will be playing Hamlet.  drewmunn  talk  14:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That it was to allow Tennant to do Hamlet was the prevailing wisdom for years. Where is this sudden change coming from? --Drmargi (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Both Tennant and Greg Doran have given numerous interviews going into detail as to how his casting in Hamlet came about and every single one has mentioned that he approached the RSC after being told by the BBC that there would be no full series that year thus he would have a long break from filming. Not to mention RTD stating the same. To claim DT is responsible for the break because he demanded no Doctor Who in order to do theatre is libellous and entirely ungrounded. Unless someone can find a reliable source stating "The break was because DT signed up to do Hamlet" (which no one will because it's utter bunkum) it absolutely should not be included. The article is fine just stating that the series had a break in 2009.85.210.47.171 (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Btw it really is not a good idea to use one person's perception of " prevailing wisdom" as a source for something so controversial. I am actually very surprised to read that. In my years in fandom I've never seen anywhere where it wasn't accepted fact that the "DT refused to do S5 in 2009 in order to do Hamlet" was a lie invented by the small group of hardcore Tennant-haters. If that allegation was true it would be pretty serious as it would cast Tennant in a very negative light. 85.210.47.171 (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, it's come from the fact that nobody's ever seen or recognised the discrepancy. RTD's book, as quoted above, verifies that it's not the case, and also notes the proliferation of the misinformation into news and culture. We've listed misinformation, and nobody's challenged it until now. I'm going to see later whether I can find an official copy of that quote online, or anything similar that corroborates its view of events, but I think it's a fairly reliable source as is.  drewmunn  talk  16:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah! I don't believe the book is available in the U.S. so I'm not familiar with it. There seems to be a couple fan girls determined to edit war to remove the statement, so a cite would be a good idea. --Drmargi (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you please refrain from throwing pejorative and condescending terms like "fangirl" around? The claim is uncited, so it has no place in the article. Period. If you want it in then find a cite for it. If you need a cite for DT stating he approached the RSC after and because the BBC told him they weren't doing a full series, it can be found in his interview in an academic journal [[1]] I would add it but I don't have a computer and I find it too fiddly to edit from a phone. Sorry. 85.210.47.171 (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In my case, I never knew it was "prevailing wisdom"! Unfortunately, "prevailing wisdom" isn't always right and, in this case, is directly contradicted by RTD. Perhaps people just assumed at the time as the announcement of a gap and Tennant's Hamlet role were more-or-less simultaneous (I think Hamlet leaked first, followed by the 'gap year' announcement, probably prompted by the former - but its announcement didn't say anything about the reason for the gap year - and correlation doesn't equal causation). Not sure you can/should cite something NOT to be true, Drmargi - hardly encyclopaedic in this context - I think the statement should be removed (as has been done)! Stephenb (Talk) 16:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Stephen, before you school another editor on what is/isn't encyclopedic or what is or is not right, you really should read their comments with a minimal amount of comprehension and respond to what was actually said. Given we suddenly had two editors, neither of whom is willing to respect BRD and consensus or engage in this discussion reverting repeatedly, I simply asked a some clarification question so as to understand the issue. I expressed no opinion whatsoever as to what should/should not be in the article. Your comments above are patronizing and very inappropriate. (I'd also avoid schooling someone with five doctoral level statistics courses and who is a published academic author on what correlation is/is not, particularly given you've just misused the term correlation in this context.) --Drmargi (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that adding the book as a citation when the gap year is mentioned should be enough to use as proof that it was planned into production; its secondary use, as a proof against the Hamlet cause, isn't then the reason for its existence, but a facet to help contributors at a later date.  drewmunn  talk  17:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it even needs that - the main History of Doctor Who article fudges it by saying it was "due to a number of factors" (poor!). But the fact that there were less episodes in 2009 is simply fact. However, if anyone wants to add a citation, the quote above is accurate (I have the book right here) and the citation would be: {{cite book |last=Davies |first=Russell T |last1=Cook | first1=Benjamin |title=Doctor Who: The Writer's Tale: The Final Chapter |accessdate=31 August 2013 |year=2010 |publisher=[[BBC Books]] |location=London |isbn=978-1-846-07861-3 |page=216}} Not entirely sure what you'd say, however! Stephenb (Talk) 17:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've stuck it in for now; if nothing else, it cites the existence of a gap year.  drewmunn  talk  17:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Drmargi - not trying to "school" anyone, apologies if that's how it came across. I was simply expressing an opinion as to what is encyclopaedic. Congrats on your statistics doctorate courses and academic publications. You've indirectly expressed an opinion as to what should be in the article by reverting at least twice, btw! Stephenb (Talk) 17:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Stephenb. Hi guys, I seem to have made a bit of an error when I made this revision yesterday. I have realised since that I accidentally reverted to one edit too early. I hope it wasn't to my edit that sparked this debate. I think it seems to be fairly obvious that Davies scheduled the break before Tennant got the role in Hamlet. Bestbaggiesfan ✉ 23:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm shocked that anyone believed that! So they cancel the entire 2009 series because David Tennant wants to do Hamlet?! So he'd put everyone out of work and rob the BBC of an entire series? David Tennant would have no such say in these matters. Of course the reason for no 2009 season would have come from higher up.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I may be missing something but...

hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.140.60 (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't Matt Smith drop out as being the Doctor and they chose a new one? How come I see nothing of this in the article? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 13:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right. It did seem strange at first to me but when you consider there have been 11 incarnations so far, this news today is just a drop in the ocean of the 50 years of Doctor Who. It is mentioned at the end of the 4th paragraph in the lead section though. Bestbaggiesfan ✉ 13:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

To further add to the confusion people are having. Matt Smith still has 2 upcoming specials before he is no longer the doctor. The announcement is news but wont have any effect until next year. 68.34.136.82 (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Versions of the Doctor.jpg image needs updating

The image of the Eleventh Doctor should be changed - the current photo is of the actor Matt Smith on the set of Doctor Who, but *not* in character. My version of the image included an image of the Doctor from The Rebel Flesh - http://s24.postimg.org/smbzzvcth/Versions_of_the_Doctor.jpg - before it was removed because "the photo of Peter Capaldi is not in character" (however, it *is* the only official publicity image used to represent the announcement of the Twelfth Doctor).

This is the source image I used: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o3UMLBMGVKU/Tc4skmzPmsI/AAAAAAAANUE/tCRCSF8374Y/s1600/rebel_promo.jpg -- (Sootyheightsfan (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC))

Well to be fair, in the shot of Smith he was in costume. I'm not sure what the policy on Capaldi is, since that will most likely not be his costume. Glimmer721 ^talk 15:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

We need to use free images as best as possible to reduce non-free per policy. The composite Doctors image is not considered one non-free, but X non-free for each source image that is non-free, so to minimize non-free, if we have a free image of one of the actors, in costume, we should be using that - hence the Matt Smith one on set is perfectly fine. Now, for Capaldi, we don't presently have a free image that would be a suitable replacement for a picture of the character of the Doctor that is free (we have free images of him, but that's not in the Doctor character), so it is reasonable to use the BBC-supplied press photos of him for this purpose. That leaves use with a composite image of 11 non-frees , about the best we can do at this time. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that, if we are to call this montage "images of The Doctor", we need to use images of the actor actually portraying The Doctor. Since Capaldi has yet to do so, it seems too soon to change the image from the one that was in use before. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never liked that Matt is quite obviously holding a script in his picture, but whether there is a better picture to use is another matter. We do have BBC promo pictures for Chris and David there though... U-Mos (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure it's a script? Rubiscous (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 August 2013

Can an item be added to the cultural references section? It would read: "In the Channel 4/ Hat Trick comedy programme, Chelmsford 123, broadcast on 9th March 1988, the TARDIS is seen to materialise in the far distance of shot when the two lead Roman characters are walking down a long, dark, rain-soaked track following their arrival in Britain. Someone steps out of the TARDIS, looks around, shakes their head & goes back in. The TARDIS dematerialises." 86.190.169.34 (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

N Not done: Too trivial to include Stephenb (Talk) 22:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2013

I noticed that in the section Spoofs and cultural references someone deleted the Star Trek TNG reference since there was no reference to it on the page for the article. Well I found a reference to it but I am not yet auto confirmed so could someone please put it back in the article? Here is the Reference for it along with screencaps of the Doctor Who reference:http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Doctor_Who TheycallmetheDoctor (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

N Not done: the reference is to another wiki, which are not reliable sources Stephenb (Talk) 07:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

that's why I said there are screen caps that show the Doctor Who references on that page. It is reliable when there is a picture to prove my edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.169.30 (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It is preferred when there are citations to reliable secondary sources discussing the matter, rather than relying on primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY for more on Wikipedia's approach here. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here are a couple of references that also prove that Doctor Who was referenced in TNG (Google books)

http://anamericanviewofbritishsciencefiction.com/2012/04/23/random-doctor-who-references-in-american-tv-shows/ In "The Neutral Zone", an on-screen graphic of Clare Raymond's family listed William Hartnell, Patrick Troughton, Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker, Peter Davison, and Colin Baker among her descendants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheycallmetheDoctor (talk • contribs) 11:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, neither of those probably meets what Wikipedia means by a reliable source. I realise this can be frustrating! Bondegezou (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Taken directly from the "reliable source page" The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. and a screen capture from the Episode in question fits the reliable source criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheycallmetheDoctor (talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

List-defined references

What do you guys think about switching the Doctor Who articles to list-defined references? There is a lot of clutter in the articles and this would help fix that. --Markhoris (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

TV Channel

It was originally broadcast on BBC TV from November 1963 then it was on BBC1 from April 1964 and the 2005 relaunch was on BBC One, see BBC_One wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will1701 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are, basically, all the same channel though. Does this article need to worry about those distinctions? Bondegezou (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. Thats like saying that a baseball player played for the Florida Marlins and then the Miami Marlins. Its all the same, just different names.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In the main text I'd say yes but only when referring to the channel it is broadcast on, eg it started on BBCtv and the relaunch was on BBC One. 1701Will (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

They are all the same channel it is just the name that is different. Read the first paragraph of the introduction to the BBC One wiki page which states this explicitly. it is not misleading to just use the current name of the channel and attempting to distinguish between the two different spellings of BBC1 is ludicrous => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

BBC1 and BBC One are the exact same channel. It was a rebrand rather than a rename.Blethering Scot 20:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no difference between a rebrand and a rename in this case. You can make the same distinction between the change from BBC Television Service to BBC TV to BBC1. The fact that BBC2 appeared being the cause of the rebrand/rename in the mid sixties.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A rebrand and a rename are not the same thing in all cases. BBC One and BBC1 is the same name, but rebranded. There is no difference between them and stating BBC1 or BBC One is clearly acceptable.Blethering Scot 21:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, BBC1 to BBC One is a rebrand but on 20 April 1964, BBCtv essentially split & BBC2 was born & that's what I'm talking about, BBCtv renamed itself to BBC1 & that's not a rebrand.1701Will (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Mirror reporting 100+ episodes just discovered

[2]. As I understand that the Mirror is a tabloid and thus reliable, we should wait until validation comes from another source. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This sounds eerily close to the rumours that were flying in June (started by BleedingCool and attracting commentary from Ian Levine) - maybe they just picked up on these rumours a few months late and turned it into a story? Comics (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Mirror article appears to be regurgitating the exact same rumour as has been going around for months. I think there's enough reliable source reporting that we should say something about the rumour (probably on the missing episodes article rather than here), but I suggest we make clear it is a rumour and not report it as fact without better substantiation. Bondegezou (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Rumors are a dime a dozen and are not notable nor are they encyclopedic. There is no need to add them to the article. MarnetteD | Talk 19:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd hold off until the BBC makes some sort of official announcement. --Drmargi (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not 100 but the radio times is now reporting that two episodes will be available for download next week. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I was just coming to say the same as Spudgfshl. What great news! Bondegezou (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

To quote the article (which I skimmed first time) "It is understood that other episodes have also been found, although it is not yet known whether these will be made available." but it doesn't say what the two are or how many others. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a shame they don't say which episodes have been recovered. This is good news because any time we can avoid the current animation style (sorry very WP:POV I know but the style is leaving me cold) it is a benefit to future DVD releases. Cheers for keeping us up to date Spudgfahl. MarnetteD | Talk 19:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Mirror is now reporting that there will be a press conference and screening on tuesday.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If you read the radio times article closely it's a bit misleading. It says that "BBC Worldwide will put the previously lost episodes from different stories – both believed to be from the Patrick Troughton era – for sale on digital platforms such as iTunes from Wednesday, RadioTimes.com understands.". It could either one episode from two stories or it could be two entire stories. It originally said two episodes but now doesn't. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• There is a parallel thread at Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes#UK Mirror reporting more than 100 just found. In my view we should not permit any of this in the live articles, since its presence will merely fuel the rumour mill. We should wait until the BBC actually make an official announcement.

Remember also that The Underwater Menace episode 2 is not yet available on DVD. If it is true that "recently recovered missing Patrick Troughton episodes will be made available digitally on Wednesday morning", isn't it possible that TUM episode 2 might be one of them? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Not even Doctor Who Online will commit themselves. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree we should be cautious (probably more than my suggested recent edits have been!) and we need sufficient reliable source citations to support edits. However, I cannot see why we should necessarily wait for the BBC to make an official announcement if there are sufficient other sources. Nothing in WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY etc. seems to support such a position. If, say, The Independent, Le Monde and The Washington Post all reported missing episodes found, that would clearly be sufficient, irrespective of whether the BBC had made an announcement. (Not that I think that is a particularly likely scenario.) Bondegezou (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that non-BBC sources might be recycling the rumour. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of recycled reports about at the moment and we must be careful not to fuel the rumours by adding anything unofficial. Speaking of stuff that is unofficial it appears that there is something more to these rumours than others in the past. I would point anyone who want to read some of the best of the rumours to read this and also to read Ian Levine's twitter feed (where he had a good rant earlier claiming 9 episodes (I assume from two serials) were to be released. He also half confirmed the RT article by talking about an embargo (not an unusual occurrence for a major announcement). sadly, none of it is from reliable sources. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've imposed a semi-prot for one week, by which time the BBC should have announced something, even if an official denial. If the BBC do make an announcement, I'll lift that semi; but if people feel that a full prot is needed, please take it to WP:RFPP, since it would be inappropriate for me to raise the prot level further. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

this appears to confirm a find - but I feel that wiki should wait till we find out what has been found before including info. I mean you can't really put "something has been found, but we don't know what" 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I am willing to take Lizo Mzimba (a correspondent often seen on BBC One News) somewhat more seriously than any Mirror-group tabloid, he does state "BBC Worldwide is expected to confirm the find at a press conference in London later this week." which is not exactly a final word; so I would prefer to wait for that press conference before lifting the semi-prot. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

While it's still uncertain what precisely has been returned, semi-protection may be sensible anyway, but I think you're parsing the BBC News article wrongly. It says, "A number of early episodes of Doctor Who, which were believed to have been permanently lost, have been returned to the BBC. / BBC Worldwide is expected to confirm the find at a press screening in London later this week." The "expected to" only implies uncertainty about when BBC Worldwide will confirm this. The article's first sentence is definitive that a "number of" episodes "have been returned to the BBC". Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The press conference is supposedly going to be on Thursday and will have Deborah Watling and Frazer Hines in attendance http://kotwg.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/deborah-watling-and-fraser-hines-to.html Shiroi Hane (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a bit of info that may not be immediately obvious for some, film stock has a tendancy to degrade quite badly. After over fifty years, it's not readily certain that the film stock will be of a quality that would be considered viewable. For that reason, the exact number of 'episodes found' may not necessarily equate to 'episodes complete and available for viewing'. My point being, expect some uncertainty in the figures here.Justin.Parallax (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

BBC Worldwide is "expected to announce" the recovery of something. Just watch for the announcement instead of adding something vague. Dr.Who (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In summary yes, my thoughts exactly. We don't know what they've recovered, how many episodes are actually viewable or how many are just smudgy lumps of vinegar-smelling degraded celuloid. All one can do is wait and see.Justin.Parallax (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There is finally a reliable source here for the rediscovered episodes. but do I add it seeing as there is an official embargo until midnight? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that, they've pulled the article.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This Independent article says that The Web of Fear and The Enemy of the World are now complete! Although the headline says "two episodes", the article itself clearly refers to two stories. It puts the number of missing episodes now at 97, from 106. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And now that article has been pulled too! I guess they broke the embargo.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears from this source that the nine are the five remaining missing episodes of Enemy of the World, and four of the five missing of Web of Fear, so the latter is not quite complete.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• You can now use this source, for example. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note, we should follow what reliable sources say. If a RS has broken an embargo, that's between them and the embargo-er: it's not our problem. We don't have to follow an embargo, just what RSs say. Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

In theory yes. However, in practice reliable sources do not break embargo, else they will not get information in advance again. What can sometimes happen is what happened here: something is posted only to be pulled, but in that case we can't rely on an archive or cache, as it could have been pulled due to an error. Edgepedia (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. The effect of an embargo is generally going to mean that Wikipedia can't cover anything until the specified time/date. But if a reliable source breaks an embargo and sticks to that (as occasionally happens), then we can use it. Bondegezou (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem, at least in this instance, is that if the article gets pulled, then it's not verifiable. DonQuixote (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Was looking for in which epi...

85.229.248.251 posted this comment on 18 October 2013 (view all feedback).

Was looking for in which episodes the Doctor regenerates from 10 to 11.

Any thoughts?

Jorge Becerra Garrido (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC) It happened in "The End of Time", the last of the 2009' specials. Here you have: The End of Time Jorge Becerra Garrido (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The List of Doctor Who serials is indexed by doctor. Maybe this needs to be more prominently linked? Edgepedia (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

GA

Hi, If anyone has spare time there is a lot that needs done to the Doctor Who article see Talk:Doctor_Who/GA2 to make it a Good Article if anyone could help me I would be much appreciated. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

hello,i am superdude122 and i'm kinda a big fan of the Doctor Who series. but i'm here because it does'nt have a list of actors on the Doctor Who article. (i mean,it does,but,it needs,well,improvements). i'm worried that the article might degrade over 20 years and basically,it practically is. i would suggest that somebody at Wikipedia would update it and make better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdude122 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. sorry, i ruined your page,kelvin 101.Superdude122 (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superdude122, and welcome to wikipedia. Can you please be more specific as to the improvements you would like to see? Edgepedia (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page

hey there,Edgepedia. kinda got your message,but i think you got a point. i should really do some editing on that one. send me a message if you know what i mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdude122 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superdude, I copied your message on my talk page here as I'm busy with real life at the moment and if I'm not around someone here can help you. However, I would like to point out there many articles on wikipedia about Doctor Who, including 15 Lists of Doctor Who characters, and this article can only ever an overview. Edgepedia (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Season/series

The infobox indicates: No. of seasons - 26 (1963–89) plus one TV film (1996) No. of series - 7 (2005–present)

Is there a reason both terms are used? I understood "season" to be an Americanism and "series" to be the equivalent Britishism. I would have assumed the first 26 years of the show were also called "series"; if this is being used as a backdoor way to show both incarnations of the show separately, it should probably be done both in the "series" field simply with a -br- html tag between them for new lines (also, the TV film is not a season/series, so it doesn't need to be referenced in this infobox) 70.31.12.237 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. The BBC used the term season for this show early on in its history. Please see this Talk:List of Doctor Who serials/Archive 10#Series vs seasons for further information. MarnetteD | Talk 16:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

External links

Just wondered if it was appropriate to list fan sites such as the Tardis wikia here, as I thought fan site links were generally not allowed at Wikipedia. 88.104.120.158 (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this falls under WP:ELMAYBE #4, i.e. "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."; this includes such sites as IMDB that are not reliable sources. Edgepedia (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The site you have given as an example is exactly the kind of thing that should be included in external links. Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who edit request

Please change "A BBC audience research survey conducted in 1972 found that by their own definition of "any act(s) which may cause physical and/or psychological injury, hurt or death to persons, animals or property, whether intentional or accidental," Doctor Who was the most violent of all the drama programmes the corporation then produced" to "A BBC audience research survey conducted in 1972 found that, by their own definition of violence ("any act[s] which may cause physical and/or psychological injury, hurt or death to persons, animals or property, whether intentional or accidental,") Doctor Who was the most violent of the drama programmes the corporation produced at the time." The commas are incorrectly placed, and they obscure the sentence's meaning. The parentheses allow the sentence to present the same information while improving its flow. "Then produced" should change to "produced at the time" because the former sounds clumsy. Thefifthbeatle14 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Already done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Section regarding charity performances

If I am understanding the article correctly, the 1999 parody by Moffat was done during the interregnum, as it were; i.e., the period after the cancellation/pausing of the initial run, but before the present one. I will not be bold and add a gloss about this fact myself for the simple reason that I could be incorrect, but if I am right, then an explanatory phrase noting that at the time the parody was made, the show had been off the air for some years, even counting the 1996 attempts.

Other observations from someone interested in the topic just this week after seeing precisely one episode (despite having dozens of Whovian pals): For this American, at least, the use of "serial" is still quite confusing, particularly in the part of the opening paragraphs in which it appears without explanation. This usage of "serial" is different from that seen in, for example, the theatrical serials that were shown in movie theaters in the '30s to '50s, or other usages I've seen. At first reading the explanation midway through the article, I thought momentarily it might refer to what others call "story arcs," but it appears that's a distinct concept. I don't know whether this usage of "serials" is particular to Doctor Who or is a broader British term unfamiliar to outsiders, but either way, it could use a bit more clarification.

Wikipedia has been moving away for some time from the old model of having a "criticism" or "controversy" section, and I'm all for that change. Nonetheless, the section where it is mentioned that there was talk in the '80s about maybe having an incarnation that was female would lend itself nicely to a couple of lines about the prominent voices within the fanbase who have called for a female and/or nonwhite incarnation or at least the occasional female writer. See for example

• Ted B. Kissell. "The depressing, disappointing maleness of Doctor Who 's new Time Lord", The Atlantic, August 5, 2013.

• "Neil Gaiman hopes a non-white person will take Doctor Who role someday", Sunday World, August 8, 2013.

• Arturo R. Garcia. "Doctor Who moves backwards in time", Racialicious, August 5, 2013.

• Madeline Davies. "Doctor Who 's dude preference Is just creatively lazy", Jezebel, August 6, 2013.

• Rebecca Pahle. "Doctor Who hasn't had a single female writer since 2008, and it's making me angry", The Mary Sue, March 27, 2013.

Lawikitejana (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Some useful suggestions there - thanks. Speaking of which, bits of the article seem to me to spend far too much space on trivia that can be covered in separate articles or simply isn't encyclopaedia-worthy at all. Do we need that much detail on the Children in Need appearances? Does the "Spoofs and cultural references" section really need so much detail (like the paragraph on Professor Justin Alphonse Gamble or so much on Culshaw)? Do we need a subsection on the Blackpool illuminations? Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No - most of the article needs simply wiping.Zythe (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

use of the word "programme"

In many instances, the word "programme" is used, which is the french translation of "program". This is likely a spelling error made by a french writter and should be corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.206 (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Programme" is a UK spelling of "program" and thus appropriate here (since a british show). --MASEM (t) 19:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Masem is correct. For the relevant policy please see WP:ENGVAR MarnetteD | Talk 19:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I second all above, it is how us British write the word when referencing in such a way. We do use "program", but it has a different meaning. American linguist pioneers were just too lazy to write it in full...  drewmunn  talk  20:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It still reads oddly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.77.190 (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It only reads oddly to those unaccustomed to reading British English. As an American who regularly reads online pieces from England, I didn't even notice the spelling difference in reading the article; moreover, much of the English-speaking word is accustomed to British English, which appears not only in the countries comprising the UK, but in many countries with historic ties to the British Empire (e.g., India, many African countries) or visited heavily by the British (e.g., Portugal). Keep reading and you'll adjust. Lawikitejana (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Programme is French spelling of Program....*chuckles* Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a more universally accepted word such as "series" or something else. JOJ ^Hutton 00:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Can't really do series, as that means a year's worth of episodes in British English. Programme is fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Jenna (Louise)

Morning! This is more of an informal RfC than anything else, but I'd just like to bring up the whole "missing-Louise" issue as far as the current companion goes. It would be my personal opinion to maintain the Louise in her name until such a time as she is credited differently, just as we kept the Ponds listed as the companions until they left. As precedence for this, see The Matrix, where the directing team is still listed as "The Wachowski Brothers", despite their new status as "The Wachowskis". However, I'm open to other views, and I'd like to see consensus reached before this becomes an edit war. Do you think she should be listed as "Jenna Coleman", because that's what she's calling herself now? Or, like me, do you think we should stick with her credited name until that changes? Thanks!  drewmunn  talk  09:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It seemed to me that, when uncertain, we should reflect the individual's wishes, as is the tone of much of WP:BLP. However, WP:BLP does not address this issue directly. WP:NCP seems the most relevant policy here. It doesn't precisely comment on this situation, but says (of changed surnames), "If a name is the evident choice of the article subject, it is likely to be common; but evidence of actual usage is to be preferred if available." By extension, that would suggest we use 'Jenna-Louise' as she is still commonly known as such, until such point as 'Jenna' is better established. (However, MOS:IDENTITY is clear on transgender individuals: it should be "the Wachowskis", not "Brothers".) Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)#Choice_of_first_name. Bondegezou (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue. She is still billed as Jenna-Louise Coleman at present on Doctor Who. The media indicates she will change the billing in future. We need to continue with Jenna-Louise until she makes the change, at which time we can, too. This is a minor issue. --Drmargi (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

At present, no-one is being billed as anything on Doctor Who as no new Who is being broadcast. We only have past Who (with Jenna-Louise) and future Who (with Jenna). However, official announcements from the BBC currently already call her Jenna: see [3] as an example. So, ISTM that current official practice is already Jenna. Bondegezou (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Further BBC cites using "Jenna": [4], [5] Bondegezou (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks for that Bondegezou, good sources, that seems settled. Rankersbo (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it settled. No consensus has been reached; I remain of the opinion that, as this article is about the television programme, the most current information available from said programme should be the information used. As the credits of the most recent episode call her Jenna-Louise, that is what I believe she should be noted as here. Unless Drmargi has had a change of heart, we're 50/50 split on the matter at this time, so the change should not have been instigated. I'll put a note at WikiProject Television to try and sort this out.  drewmunn  talk  13:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The lack of activity for 7 weeks kind of gave the impression that consensus had been reached! However, OK, let's re-examine this issue. With respect to your argument, I don't see any Wikipedia policy to support it. We should follow what reliable sources say, and reliable sources refer to her as "Jenna". What Wikipedia policy supports favouring "the credits of the most recent episode" over what current reliable sources (the BBC) say? Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't very much get how a previously billed name has any more weight than the individual stating the change. Waiting for a new episode with a new billing? That's not how names work. Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The BBC may refer to her that way, but my point is the programme Doctor Who doesn't. As I said above, The Matrix refers to the directing team as the Wachowski Brothers, despite more recent events meaning they are no longer credited as such in new productions. They are credited as such in the most recent release of that production, so that's how they're credited on Wikipedia. I have no problem with Jenna's article calling her Jenna, but within the programme Doctor Who (which is what this article covers), she has always been Jenna-Louise. Reliable sources prove that her name is now Jenna, and I don't dispute this. I look at this in a similar way as the name of the current Doctor is listed. He is currently (see "most recent portrayal") portrayed by Matt Smith, and will be until he regenerates (or changes his name in the credits…). By that theory, Clara is currently portrayed by Jenna-Louise Coleman. Her name may have changed in the meantime, but how she is credited has not yet changed. See all of her other roles, where the articles still credit her as Jenna-Louise.  drewmunn  talk  16:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On the other side, there are numerous cases were actors are "credited as" some variation of their name or even a pseudonym, however I can't think of a standard where they are credited as that on wikipedia. Your example of the Doctor being credited as Matt Smith when Capaldi has been hired on as the next actor is irrelevant; for all intents and purposes those are two different characters (11th and 12th, respectively). "How she is credited" has absolutely no bearing on what the person's name is.Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

My point isn't regarding Capaldi, it's regarding the fact that Matt Smith is still The Doctor, despite the programme being off the air, and other actors still portraying him in various other media. I agree how she's credited has no bearing on her name, that's my point. We list who the companion is, which is the person credited (Jenna-Louise), whatever their other, more current names may be (Jenna). Also, it could easily be argued that WP:COMMONNAME makes her current name irrelevant. She's known as Jenna-Louise more prominently than she's known as Jenna. There's probably something from WP:RECENTISM to do with that…  drewmunn  talk  16:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Another option might be to use her own article as a reference. That is, don't change it until her article changes or don't change it until she's credited as such, whichever comes first. DonQuixote (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I still struggle with Sonicdrewdriver's position. Clara is not currently portrayed by someone under the name Jenna-Louise Coleman. She was portrayed by Jenna-Louise. She is currently not portrayed by anyone because the show is off air, but the BBC's Dr Who website and press announcements all call her Jenna now. I don't see a reason to privilege the last episode to be broadcast over what the BBC's current pronouncements say.

And we know she will be credited as Jenna in the anniversary special, in about 50 days time, at which point Sonicdrewdriver would presumably support the use of Jenna. I can't see much point in hanging on to Jenna-Louise for 50 days! Bondegezou (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

But it doesn't say "currently portrayed" in the infobox, it just says "currently". Perhaps some editors are seeing this as "currently credited"; after all it's generally the rule that cast lists in the infoboxes on episodes follow the credits. Another argument is that her article is at Jenna-Louise Coleman, looking at the article's talk page I see there's discussion on opening a move discussion after the 50th Anniversary Special has been broadcast.

Can't speak for Sonicdrewdriver about when they would be happy seeing the name in the infobox changing. I can't see the need for speed on something that is clearly controversial. Edgepedia (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy to see the change the moment she's credited as such in an episode. As far as website and press statements go, this article is about the television programme. A list of cast credits (as in the infobox) can only go on the credits for the programme, not how a person is credited outside it. She may currently be credited as Jenna in other media, but other media are not our concern in this article. The television programme "Doctor Who" is our concern, and the most recent credits read "Jenna-Louise". This will change, and when it does, we should reflect that.  drewmunn  talk  07:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about a particular episode, where the particular episode's credits are significant. It is about all of Doctor Who. Reliable sources -- the BBC's own official Dr Who website -- call her Jenna. What Wikipedia policy says credits from many months ago trump multiple current reliable sources? Bondegezou (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Look at the article for The Ark in Space. John Lucarotti is listed in the infobox as a co-writer even though he is not credited on the episodes. That's because reliable sources are more important than simply copying out credits. Reliable sources call her Jenna, not Jenna-Louise. Bondegezou (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The difference there is that he was not credited, despite having a verified role. Jenna is credited, as Jenna-Louise. Her status will change when the on-screen credits change, because currently her on-screen credit is Jenna-Louise. If she weren't credited at all in the episodes (see Spooks), then it would be different. However, the primary source on which this article is based (the television programme) currently refers to her as Jenna-Louise. Other sources (the BBC, for instance) may use a different name, but it's neither the most current primary credit, nor her COMMONNAME, so it doesn't warrant the alteration at this time.  drewmunn  talk  08:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You are quite right that the on-screen credits are a primary source. What does Wikipedia policy say about primary sources? See WP:PRIMARY. Well, that's clear: secondary sources take precedence over primary sources. Other sources (the BBC, for instance) are what Wikipedia policy tells us to use in preference to a primary source like an on-screen credit. WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles, which is not what we are discussing here. One could generalise the principle, but then it seems to me that "Jenna" is her common name, it is how everything in the last several months refers to her. Here are two recent examples: [6], [7] Bondegezou (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

But "the last few months" doesn't take precedence over the rest of time, which still outweighs just "Jenna". Anyway, the difference between a good primary source (in this case, an episode of the programme this article is about), and any of the references you've supplied is that none of the secondary sources specifically override the primary. She is referred to as Jenna now, as the sources note, but they do not change the existence of her credit within the show. You can't change something that has occurred when it won't be overridden by something that will occur in the future, until said future action does occur. In my opinion, we wait until the 50th broadcasts. Then the credits will have altered, so we can reflect that. Until then, as I've said above, she is still Jenna-Louise in the eponymous programme.  drewmunn  talk  14:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

She's been Jenna for several months in multiple reliable sources and shows every intention of sticking to that: I think that's plenty of time. The rest of your reply does not engage with WP:PRIMARY, which explicitly and specifically states that we should look to secondary sources over primary sources. Wikipedia policy does not give any special weight to a "credit within the show" and, indeed, favours secondary over primary sources. You have repeatedly talked about her credit within the show as having some special significance, but you've not provided any support for that position and I have shown you Wikipedia policy contradicting that. I don't know what more to say. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The point I'm attempting to make is that no sources specifically deal with changing the fact that she is credited as such currently. They note that she will be come the special, but not now. The secondary sources are of no use proving that her current status as Jenna in the professional world has any bearing on her past work, only on her future. Most currently, Clara was portrayed by Jenna-Louise. In the special, she will be portrayed by Jenna. The sources make that clear (although they only presume anyway. She may have a change of heart and go back on it all by the time we get there. Does that make presuming the change OR on our part?). I draw your attention to this time 11 months ago, when this article noted there was no current companion. Clara would be introduced in the next episode, and we'd already seen her character previously, but she had no standing as companion. Articles already referred to her as The Doctor's companion, but we didn't. Think of it this way: Imagine Jenna-Louise quit, and Clara was recast. The new actor would not be introduced until the next episode, and Jenna-Louise would not return to explain the alteration in any way. Who would be the reigning companion? If we apply the same rules as we do with the Doctor, we would not change the billing until it occurred on screen. Anyway, I can see we're not going to agree on this matter. So until other points are brought in by users other than simply us two, what say we let it lie undecided?  drewmunn  talk  15:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I see I came up in the discussion and thought I should weigh in. You know, boys and girls, this will all be over on November 23, when the new episode airs, and this issue shows no signs of being resolved before then. Given that, wait and see seems to be the best way to go.

The primary v. secondary sources policy isn't as sweeping as portrayed above, and much of it is more about how to handle primary sources than a global secondary-over-primary rule. There is at least one major exception, and that's for television, where on screen and the network sources (versus secondary media sources) are considered the most reliable (see the debate over a character's name on the U.S. show Elementary (TV series), which is similar). Right now, the most recent on-screen billing for Coleman is Jenna-Louise as far as I can recall. My feeling is that there's your reliable source for now. Once the next episode is broadcast, and if she appears as Jenna Coleman (and it seems reasonable to expect she will) the change can be made. Easy. --Drmargi (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree… This is a lot of bother over something so soon to be a non-issue.  drewmunn  talk  15:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Show me a Wikipedia policy that supports this repeated assertion that a past on-screen credit has some special primacy over WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. The person who plays the companion in Dr Who is generally called Jenna Coleman, as attested by multiple, reliable, secondary sources. The idea that we must wait for an on-screen credit change before making a change to this article seems like, if I might use the term, fan cruft and not the actions of an encyclopaedia. Bondegezou (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

If it were down to fancruft, then it would have been updated the second any hint of a name change were found. I explained above my view that a secondary source that doesn't cover the same subject as a primary one is not more valuable in the circumstances, and your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY is not quite the same as mine. In this case, the primary source is the only one we have. Secondary sources exist that confirm the name change of the actor, but not in relation to the current status on the programme. Saying "Jenna will be credited without 'Louise" in the anniversary special" is not the same as "Jenna is now called Jenna." They do not veto anything prior to the anniversary special, but refer to her as she wishes to be referred to in a descriptive manner, not in a manner that qualifies them as a secondary source on the confirmation of her naming currently within Doctor Who programming. If she'd legally altered her name, this may be different, but it is merely a crediting decision, and not even one that her own article considers prominent enough at this time to warrant a move.  drewmunn  talk  18:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested if you could spell out how you interpret WP:PRIMARY to support your position.

It is your overriding concern with the credit "within Doctor Who programming" that seems to me to be the wrong approach. The article should describe who plays the Doctor's companion at present. That person is someone generally known as Jenna, so that's what an encyclopaedia should call her. The idea that her credit "within Doctor Who programming" overrides how she is generally known or is of any particular importance to anyone but fans feels wrong under Wikipedia policy. She's a real person with a real life, with a name attested by multiple reliable secondary sources, as Wikipedia policy clearly says we should favour. Forgive me if I am mistaken in this matter, but you seem to have never shown me any policy that says an old on-screen credit should override all that.

Clearly there's no consensus here. I recognise that the article is going to stick with Jenna-Louise until 23 November, when it will be changed to Jenna. Bondegezou (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

My point is that none of your secondary sources deal with the matter in hand, which is how she's currently credited. They deal with her name change.  drewmunn  talk  15:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to say who currently plays the part of the Doctor's companion. I see nothing that says the role of the infobox is to note "how she's currently credited". That focus on the on-screen credit appears to be your interpretation of what should go in the infobox, rather than something derived from a Wikipedia guideline or policy. Nor it is the result of a discussion that led to WP:CONSENSUS. Please do point me towards the relevant text if I am mistaken in this matter. Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

An episode has aired, crediting Jenna under her revised proffessional name. I assume this issue is now resolved. Rankersbo (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Reframing the document during RFC - Please Don't

While it's been established that the table of doctors should not be altered during the ongoing discussion about its contents, some Wikipedia Editors have attempted to reframe contents of the page to suit their own beliefs. The following sentence was added just above the table: "The following table shows the procession of actors who have thus far headlined as the programme's de jour[sic] Doctor." This tries to establish page's contents while Editors are in discussion as to what that should be. When the RFC began, no such headline existed. Please don't try and dictate its contents until a group decision has been reached. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I was basically oblivious to an RFC, and just doing a standard Writing about Fiction edit. The section went on about the fictional process of regeneration and the biography of a made-up person, rather than discuss the "show".Zythe (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Also you're wrong about the 1-12 list being a "fan's interpretation." There is a real life procession of actors who play the role, billed in the media ("Who will play the Doctor next?") and countless lists to the exact same effect compiled by WP:RS.Zythe (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Such media certainly included Peter Cushing's portrayal at the time. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Cushing was never the Doctor in the same way as the others; there wasn't a point when the show was off the air, when one actor bequeathed the role to him before he in turn passed it on. No media sources count him as a proper Doctor - he only comes up in the context of "Did you know this person also played the Doctor?" For context, Cushing was cast as "Dr. Who" in a very separate movie based on a licensed concept, which came out while the show was still on air; producers of the show wanted nothing to do with it. There is an article for the movie; this is the article for the TV series, with which it shares nothing but the vaguest resemblance of concept.Zythe (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You're talking purely about how fans see the films NOW -- not how those films were treated at the time. The idea of them having nothing to do with the series on which they were based in nonsensical: The films were made for fans of the series. Also, despite what you claim, there have been several attempts by producers to make those movies CANON. Just because you don't like those movies, and just because current canon doesn't include them, has nothing to do with their real world standing. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No, they were always distinct - in their production origins, in what they presented, in the fact that they never did linked to the TV show at all and clearly at every stage from conception through to release it was a distinct work in the way I have said. They were only conflated in the public consciousness, to some degree, but that's not actually relevant. It's not about my personal taste (I haven't even watched Cushing's films, but have read about them) or about canon; it's about them being distinct entities in every sense, with only the faintest of attempts in yet more licensed spin-offs to try and reconcile the stories.Zythe (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no Dr Who canon (as has been debated previously and agreed on Wikipedia). Bondegezou (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who edit request

Please change "A BBC audience research survey conducted in 1972 found that by their own definition of "any act(s) which may cause physical and/or psychological injury, hurt or death to persons, animals or property, whether intentional or accidental," Doctor Who was the most violent of all the drama programmes the corporation then produced" to "A BBC audience research survey conducted in 1972 found that, by their own definition of violence ("any act[s] which may cause physical and/or psychological injury, hurt or death to persons, animals or property, whether intentional or accidental,") Doctor Who was the most violent of the drama programmes the corporation produced at the time." Thefifthbeatle14 (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Second request: The current phrasing "The Doctor as of 2013 is portrayed by actor Matt Smith, who is set to hand over the role to Peter Capaldi in the programme's 2013 Christmas special." needs to be amended to "The Doctor as of 2013 is portrayed by actor Matt Smith, who handed over the role to Peter Capaldi in the programme's 2013 Christmas special." now that it's been aired on by the BBC. ThomasDalladay (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Table of doctors

In the 'Change of appearance' section of the article, there is a table of incarnations to play the Doctor, with actor and dates. Directly under this, there is a sentence saying, "The BBC has announced that Matt Smith is to leave the show after the 2013 Christmas episode, to be replaced by Peter Capaldi.[68]"

The last row of the table reads...

The Doctor	Portrayed by	Tenure
Eleventh Doctor	Matt Smith	2010–

Several people have edited this to give Smith's tenure as 2010-2013, and others have edited the table to add Capaldi as twelfth Doctor. These edits have been reverted without much explanation. I'm here to ask why?

We have reliable source citations that Smith's tenure ends in 2013. We have reliable source citations that Capaldi will be playing the 12th Doctor. It is, I suppose, possible that Capaldi will be run over by a bus and they'll re-write everything so Smith stays on, but is that really sufficient reason to leave the table unchanged. Why not change the table and include a footnote if you want to note these are future events? But it seems bizarre to me to have a table stating Smith's tenure is open-ended when we have RS citations saying when it ends.

Or what about having "2010-incumbent" for Smith? That, at least, doesn't imply Smith might stay on beyond this year. Bondegezou (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This question has crossed my mind (wrt a few articles) recently. I think it's a discussion that needs to be had with a wider remit. There are a number of places that things are reverted regardless of reliable sources. I think this discussion needs to be had at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who (or at least a note added there to point people to this discussion). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Listing "incumbent" seems reasonable. As to why a lot of people are against listing Smith's final year and Capaldi in the table is because the fact that Smith is leaving by the end of the year and Capaldi taking over is already mentioned in the article as something that has been announced, and so far that's all that is. Those two facts have been announced but haven't actually happened yet. The table is for displaying tenures, so Smith's hasn't ended yet and Capaldi's hasn't begun yet. DonQuixote (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

My only issue with putting an actual date is until the filming of the Christmas Special is finished we don't know how long it will be (and therefore if they decide to split it over two episodes and nudging into 2014). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• We have an article at Twelfth Doctor. It is nonsense to not include it in this article.

Capaldi is to be the twelfth doctor. This is well sourced, the BBC having gone quite over the top with their unusual pre-announcement of him. The reader interest is obvious. Our policy about WP:CRYSTAL rightly exists to exclude fanboy speculation. However we are well beyond that stage by now. If Capaldi does not play the Doctor, maybe he's exterminated by Daleks in the next month, that would itself be notable.

We should include Capaldi and the relevant links. Dress this up as "to play the Doctor in the future" as much as you wish, but continuing to ignore Capaldi is ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Capaldi isn't being ignored. He's mentioned in the article...at least twice (once right below the table). Within the context of the table, please read the section in question and see how he doesn't fit the context of the table. It has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL. DonQuixote (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed recently at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Future_Events_with_reliable_sources. Edgepedia (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The 12th Doctor belongs in that list just about as much as Charles III, William V, and George VII belong in List of British monarchs. Rubiscous (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Your situation is only similar if we know when it is Elizabeth II and each of Charles and William is going to complete their term as monarch. Given the non-linear nature of the show's stories there exists the possibility of over-lap after the initial term is completed; no character's end is really known and each cast member's end is only secured by their death save for the use of archival footage which can keep them recurring well after their demise if the writers so wish. That is where The Five Doctors comes in and also this forthcoming episode featuring the 10th and 11th Doctors and introducing the 12th Doctor. To compare that to the terms of the British monarchs is to suggest their non-fictional resurrection / vampire / zombie has been activated. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:CRYSTAL. The 12th Doctor falls under the part about info that is "verifiable" and "notable and almost certain to take place", thus IS allowed. Those monarchs fall under the "a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names" part, thus is NOT. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

For course it's allowed, that's why the 12th Doctor is mentioned under the table. As CRYSTAL also says that "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place", prose under the table allows for the information to be qualified by how we know – at the moment we have a sourced announcement, we could add filming, etc as this becomes available. Edgepedia (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand where you are going on this. It's unlikely with all the fanfare over the announcement, and the fact PC has already been seen in the role that there is any kind of bait-and-switch in place, or that the Christmas episode won't air on Christmas day, but the Christmas schedule has yet to be announced. It's a month to Christmas day now, can't we be patient and leave it as it is until then? Rankersbo (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't know when Matt Smith is going to complete his term as the Doctor. We only know roughly. Has Moffat said explicitly that there's a single episode regeneration story on Xmas day? Would be a first if true, and even then things don't always go to plan. Rubiscous (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The decision won't be made as to whether there is one or two episodes until the filming has finished. The length of the 50th anniversary special wasn't confirmed until the filming for that was finished and the christmas episode will be the same. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The table should be changed when the new doctor is officially on the show and only then — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.137.194 (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

We know now that Capaldi will actually be the thirteenth doctor as we've seen Paul McGann (8) re-generate into William Hurt (9) and presumably if Hurt regenerates to Christopher Eccleston then that'd make Capaldi the thirteenth doctor. Matt Whitby

You will want to read this item where Moffat says that the "war Doctor" is not changing the numbering of the doctors who come after McGann's 8th Dr. MarnetteD | Talk 17:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Not too sure what criteria you are using to select actors who have played Dr Who, and also what qualifies as a Dr Who film, but I notice that there is no reference to the two films made in 1965 and 6 starring Peter Cushing. The characters portrayed in these films were the same characters that were in the first series. The Films are listed on IMDB80.111.155.138 (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

They're mentioned in Doctor Who#Adaptations and other appearances. DonQuixote (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't have any choice. John Hurt officially played "The Doctor" so he will be listed. This will require adjusting the numbers for Ecclestone and on. Also we need to add the new Doctor, as Peter Capaldi appears in "Day of the Doctor" Watch the scene where the Tardis fleet surrounds Gallifrey, and the General complains about first three doctors, then twelve, and then "THIRTEEN" at which point a partial view of Capaldi's face is shown. BBC has declared Capaldi #13. The page should echo the BBC's definition. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"Time of the Doctor" reconciles the names of the doctors with the number of regenerations (12), including the missing War Doctor and 10's second regeneration, and Peter Capaldi actually being the first regeneration of a second cycle. Adding a 'Regeneration' column as separate from the 'Name' column to the table brings keeps all the known information. E.g. See [8]. Currently the text of the section says "can only regenerate 12 times, for a total of 13 incarnations" and then presents a table with the first column containing "First Doctor"..."Twelth Doctor", which gives the (misleading) impression that these numbers are related to the 13 incarnations; as we now know the names do *not* match the regenerations, then these need to be separate columns. Sgryphon Sgryphon (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs) Rusted AutoParts 15:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I will review this. Rusted AutoParts 15:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review Doctor Who, I look forward to reading your review thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been much progress on this, but I just looked at the article (since the 50th anniversary is a little over a month away). If you want, I'm happy to take over the GA review, as I think at the very least a DYK on this on 23 November is a very worthwhile goal. A quick look through reveals the following issues :

• The lead pays too much attention to the swap between Matt Smith and Peter Capaldi. I would expect in time for David Tennant's name to drop off the lead, and for Smith to follow.
  • I looked closer into this and...William Hartnell isn't even mentioned in the lead. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Numerous sentences (mostly at the end of paragraphs) are not cited to reliable sources. The "episodes" section contains several completely unsourced paragraphs.

• Content in the "History" and "Episodes" sections seems to be duplicated - for example, the explanation that the show was supposed to be educational and not contain "bug eyed monsters".

• The article has one {{verification failed}} tag and one {{citation needed}} tag.
  • I also spot some very small paragraphs and many paragraphs/sentences without references (see "episodes", for instance). Glimmer721 ^talk 02:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

In my view, all of the above issues need to be resolved before this article can meet the GA criteria. I can carry on reviewing the article in more depth if that's of any help. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Added a couple of quick comments as well. This article certainly has a lot of potential - and there have been so many books written about the programme's history (take [9], for instance, which very recently has a second edition) and analyzing it; often, things have happened because of production reasons, and the whole show is broken up into many eras and many have their reason for existing (exploring what the show can do, capitalizing on monster popularity, capitalizing on Earth-bound stories to save the show from cancellation, dialing back the horror, etc). There is History of Doctor Who, but this article needs a brief overview of everything production-wise instead of focusing, as it seems, on the beginning and the revived series. Overall, this article often reads like many pieces of information stitched together over the years, which can make it hard to read and find information. There is a large amount of information on the characters (do we need a separate sections on meetings between the Doctor in this article?) and "this happened then" things, rather than why they happened. For example, there are reasons behind the companions and their roles in the show, which have changed over time, and that may be better for an overview article than a list of notable companions (without understanding why they are notable). Also, there is notably not a reception section, which would admittedly require a lot of research to make a concise overview of the entire 50-year history: the pluses and minuses to everything. A themes or genre section would also be interesting and probably has received coverage (now I'm just brainstorming, sorry). This article is a good start, but it's got a long way to go and I honestly don't believe it is at its best yet. It is no doubt intimidating and I salute anyone who is willing to overhaul this article into something that matches the quality articles being produced today, and would help with any advice and research to the best of my abilities. It could be a project-wide task if many are willing to pool resources. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Since there's been no progress on this for over a month, I am going to boldly close the review, though Glimmer721 makes excellent points and Kelvin 101 should carry on improving the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2013

the page does not list the doctor "peter cushing" as a doctor even though e was in the dalek films and I think this should be pointed out that credit should be given where it is due.

my links are as follows to support this: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001088/?ref_=tt_cl_t1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060278/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_wr#writers http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059126/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_67

he played the doctor in the films in 1965 dr who and the daleks

Benjamindickinson1988 (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

He's listed in the section Doctor Who films. DonQuixote (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Which is at the head of the "Adaptations and other appearances" no less, therefore given more prominence than the Spin-offs, Charity episodes, audio adventures, books etc. He also gets a mention underneath the table at Doctor_Who#Changes_of_appearance. Any more weight would be inappropriate. Rubiscous (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

The Dalek section is slightly outdated after the two 2013 specials, and two edits are needed to bring it up to date:

1) The article refers to "the often-referred-to-but-never-shown Time War." Scenes from the Time War featured prominently in the 50th Anniversary Special "The Day of the Doctor." Perhaps a footnote to this effect should be added. Alternatively, change it to "the often-referred-to-but-almost-never-shown Time War." I think the footnote would be neater, though.

2) The article states that the most recent appearance of the Daleks was in the 2012 episode "Asylum of the Daleks." This should be changed to "the 2013 Christmas Special "The Time of the Doctor" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.23.111 (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)