Talk:Doctor Who series 10/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Missy's return

Missy's actress Michelle Gomez confirming she's returning for this series (hasn't said whether it's the 2016 Christmas special or the 2017 run of episodes) - https://twitter.com/News_Doctor_Who/status/737008812087971840

2A02:C7D:877:D800:3175:8001:8F05:C85A (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That's posted from an unverified account, and hence cannot be used as a source. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Episodes 3 and 4

Regarding my edit which has been reverted: 1. Sarah Dollard and Mike Bartlett are writing Episodes 3 and 4 respectively. It's in the new issue of DWM (Doctor Who Magazine - 501). If that isn't proof then I don't know what is. 2. Lawrence Gough and Bill Anderson are directors for Series 10. 3. Bill Anderson is directing Episodes 3 and 4 as seen on Pearls CV. "2016, Television, Bill, DR WHO SERIES 10, BBC, Lawrence Gough Bill Anderson Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4" -- Basic logic dictates that by blocks "episodes" is meant.

So yeah. Pearl's CV and DWM are the sources to prove this. If there is some difficulty in who's directing what - then leave that. DWM confirms Sarah Dollard and Mike Bartlett are Episodes 3 and 4 and that this is Block 2 - which doesn't require much mental cognition to work out that this is Bill Anderson as seen on Pearl's CV :)

Badgerdog2 (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocks are very different to episodes. Hence, it does not explicitly state that he is directing episodes 3 and 4. DWM is a fair enough source. Also, do try to leave the snarkiness at the login page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Matt Lucas

@Intyre: Rather than reverting again I thought it'd be best to bring it here. Neither of the new sources state that he will have a main role in this series. "Will be seen regularly" could mean anything, and is up to editor interpretation, which is considered WP:OR. Not even the official post from BBC states that he'll be in a main role, and they are far more reliable - if they're not mentioning it, then it should be left as-is. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry it took me long to answer. "Will be seen regularly" sounds rather unambiguous, if he was a recurring character then it would be stated that way [1]. I might as well ask where did you get the word "recurring" from since the sources didn't state it. As for sources they are from BBC Worldwide site, just as official as those from BBC site. In addition there are numerous statements that Lucas is not just joining Doctor Who or the cast in order to appear now and then, but specifically joins the Doctor and Bill in the TARDIS for adventures in time in space:

“Delighted and slightly amazed to be welcoming Matt Lucas back on to the TARDIS - and this time it’s not just for Christmas, he’s sticking around. One of the greatest comedy talents on planet Earth is being unleashed on all of time and space.” [2]

The lovable character will be seen regularly in Series 10, starting from the first episode!

It will also star Peter Capaldi as The Twelfth Doctor and Pearl Mackie as the new companion Bill, alongside Matt, he told the BBC: “I’m chuffed to bits that Nardole is returning to the TARDIS for some more adventures.” [3]

As we discovered earlier this week, actor Matt Lucas is joining Team TARDIS for Doctor Who Series 10.

Doctor Who will return in December 2016 with a Christmas Special, followed by the new series starring Peter Capaldi, Pearl Mackie and Matt Lucas in 2017. [4] (And look at the picture)

Matt Lucas is the Doctor's new companion!

The comedian and actor, who appeared in last year's Christmas special, will reprise the role of Nardole throughout the next series of Doctor Who, joining Peter Capaldi's Doctor and new companion Pearl Mackie aboard the TARDIS.

Welcome aboard the TARDIS, Matt Lucas! [5]

It's pretty clear that he will be a companion, but you won't get that title from beebs right now because Pearl is being promoted as full-time companion, there's no need to overshadow her, and they not tend to promote secondary companions in the first place. And I can't remember anyone in the revived series who would be travelling in the TARDIS for a while and not considered as a companion. Intyre (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

He shouldn't go in the infobox under "starring" until he gets star billing. DonQuixote (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

All of that bold (only a few sourced), and not one says that he's going to be main cast. Wait for any official BBC announcement; many characters have been in the TARDIS multiple times, and have not been considered a companion - this has been deemed before to be WP:OR, basing their status on this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, entirely scanned over this talk page section before editing. Matt's been consistently described as appearing regularly, as per the quotations above; that's definitely enough to warrant a mention in the lead - currently he's relegated to one brief mention alongside a guest star - and in my opinion strong enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox also. The standard is regular or recurring = main or guest, and Matt's regular and thus - as of now - sources suggest he is a main character. If we wait for a source to directly describe him as "main" we could be waiting forever; "regular" is a synonym for "main" in this context, however, and I don't think it's OR to assert that.

Compare Matt's announcement with that of Samuel Anderson as Danny two years back: [6]. Danny is directly described as "recurring", despite the fanfare of the announcement - Matt has quite clearly been given a role considered to be more major than Samuel's, i.e. more than a recurring character, and so I think the article should reflect that.

Lastly, to be clear, I am not saying we should describe Nardole as a companion. That's a distinct dramatic role that has not been reliably attached to this character as yet - but not necessarily being a companion does not mean he can't be described as a "star" of the series. U-Mos (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You missed one of them, which is pretty solid confirmation: "starring Peter Capaldi, Pearl Mackie and Matt Lucas". But none of the other quoted parts confirm that status explicitly and unambiguously – if it weren't for that, it would still be WP:OR. Even if "regular" is the same thing as "main", "seen regularly" is not necessarily the same thing as "regular". But that's all moot because we have the source explicitly saying "starring". nyuszika7h (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

What we have is only one source stating it that is not directly from the BBC, when we have a lot more that state otherwise. The discussion about whether the last two/three episodes of Series 9 being single/multi-parters was mostly waged over how many sources stated what they were. We should either wait for an official source from the BBC that states that he is starring, or for the opening credits of the first episode. If he is credited, then he's starring. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see there are multiple sources. The others don't explicitly refute the claim, but I guess it's best to wait for a better source. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, looks like we've got a confirmation. In this video from the official DW YouTube channel it was specifically said Nardole is a companion. Intyre (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who: The Fan Show. Barely official by any standard. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It's made by the BBC. It's a documental show similar to Confidential and Extra, only their main subject is Doctor Who fandom instead of cast and crew on set, hence the title. Intyre (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Story Numbers

There is no need to put TBA in the story column for episodes 2-4, they have different writers, they weren't announced as two-parters, there will only be two two-parters max, most likely only one (just the finale, like in Series 8), plus episode 2 and 3 are produced in different blocks. The episodes are definitely not two-parters, there is no reason not to list the story numbers. Fan4Life (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. You need to cite a reliable source verifying any of that--especially since there have been cases where the above has been false (see The Dalek Masterplan for example). DonQuixote (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. This is entirely original research. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous, it isn't original research, it is using facts. Fan4Life (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"Utopia" and "The Sound of Drums"/"The Last of the Time Lords" were produced in different blocks, and those episodes are regarded as a three-parter. TedEdwards (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Saying that A is true because of B without referring to a reliable source is original research--even if you are using fact. The "because" part is the original research part. DonQuixote (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Christmas Special Page

By some weird coincidence, I just looked through the edit history of "The Husbands of River Song" and discovered that that episode page was opened on 12 November 2015. It's now 12 November 2016 - should the page for "The Return of Doctor Mysterio" be created/linked? There should be just enough information in terms of cast members, crew etc. to open a proper page - as well as a poster. 109.151.163.193 (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Only if there is enough production information (not just a cast list and poster), then the article should definitely be created. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/2016-christmas-special-the-return-of-doctor-mysterio-81133.htm

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-11-03/sneak-preview-of-the-doctor-who-christmas-special-to-be-revealed-during-children-in-need

http://www.anglotopia.net/british-entertainment/brit-tv/bbc/doctor-whoooligan-noel-clarke-talks-return-doctor-mysterio-class-power-daleks/

http://www.movienewsguide.com/doctor-christmas-special-2016/306800

Some links that various info could be salvaged and prised from for now. I expect more news to follow in the next week or (as is usually the case) but there should be enough here for now (and for the public to view the page just to have an overview of all information released so far). Probably best to see how it goes. 109.151.163.193 (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Only the first two are reliable sources. And sources are all well and good, but a draft needs to be written up to make sure that there's enough content to make an article valid. Alex|The|Whovian^? 19:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Does the article have enough information now? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Return_of_Doctor_Mysterio&redirect=no BlueBlue11 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No. It only has two sections, Filming and Cast notes. Most definitely not enough. Realistically, per every other television series, the article shouldn't exist until after it has aired. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"The Husbands of River Song" only needed the Filming and Broadcast sections before it became its own article. BlueBlue11 (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, then, it shouldn't have been created so early. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Then, unless the rules have changed since series 9, that indicates that your vision of when articles should be created is flimsy at best. BlueBlue11 (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel as if the page should be created now, simply for convenience. Once it's up, running and public, it will grow with whatever information individuals find. Also, is AlexTheWhovian the boss of all this or something? This isn't a dig - I'm genuinely curious. Everyone seems to come to you for questions, you seem to be everywhere on all these related pages and you seem to have the final say on most things. 109.151.161.213 (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The best way to do that would be to create a draft, then move it to the article mainspace once it's valid. I'm not any sort of boss, nor do I own anything here - I have simply been editing Wikipedia long enough to know the guidelines and policies that dictate the creation of articles and their content, especially television-based ones. As a major contributor to the Television WikiProject, and as a massive personal fan of Doctor Who, it's why I'm seen around here a lot. And I "have the final say" on far less than those that I do. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Right so if you don't have the final say then someone can make the article without you reverting it back again? BlueBlue11 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

If it goes against consensus, then it'll probably be turned into a redirect. DonQuixote (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, I don't have the final say. I'm just another editor. If there is consensus to create the article, go for it. Else, create the article in the draft namespace first. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

If you take away the "Plot" section from "The Husbands of River Song" page, the page would have pretty much the same amount of information. No reason not to open it now. I have added some stuff about broadcast details and will open the page now. 109.151.161.213 (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it has a lot more. THoRS has Production, Broadcast, Reception and Home media. As much of this is unavailable before the episode has aired, this is why episode pages are not created until after the episode has aired for almost every television series. Doctor Who should be no exception. If you want more editors to back up my opinion, I can request for the opinions of other contributors of the Television WikiProject, to see if it meets the general notability guide. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

THoRS has Reception and Home media extra. And I am aware that pages aren't typically created until after the episode has aired, but Doctor Who has always been a unique case. 109.151.161.213 (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

And why is it a unique case? Based on what guideline? Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure you've said this yourself numerous times. It's been going for 53 years, the way the episodes are portrayed are different to most shows I can thing of. Each episode is completely different, with unique things to discuss and inform on. Regular two-parters too, these aren't common with most mainstream TV series. Plus DW has an audience that thrives off of getting any information they can get their hands on. A Wikipedia page will give them just that, as it shows all the information in one place before the run up to the episode. I have only recently started editing WP - I edit things that I, as a fan of TV, want to see, because I want to help people who a similar to me. 109.151.161.213 (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Except that we are not a fan site to service the average reader; we are a site governed by guidelines and policies. The series may be unique in the way that it groups episodes, but it's not so unique that it should have articles created for it that have barely enough information to make two paragraphs, which goes against guidelines of the whole site, not just one area; hence, the article now exists at Draft:The Return of Doctor Mysterio for the time being. I'll reach out to the Television WikiProject contributors to see if they agree that the standards of Doctor Who-related articles should be equivalent to those of regular series. I understand you have only just recently starting editing Wikipedia - I would recommend reading up on the guidelines and policies of the website. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Moffat's last series

apologies if I spelt his name wrong, but isn't this confirmed as Moffat's last series before handing the head-writer crown to Mark Gatiss? shouldn't that be in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.35.220 (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

From the article: It was announced in January 2016 that Series 10 would be Steven Moffat's final series as showrunner, after which he will be replaced in the role by Chris Chibnall in 2018. DonQuixote (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Twelfth incarnation?

It might seem overly picky but it's worth pointing out that Capaldi does not play the 'twelfth incarnation' of the Doctor. He's either the thirteenth or fourteenth depending on how you count Tennant. 2.220.84.67 (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

He isn't referred to as the twelfth incarnation in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Read the first line of the Casting section.2.220.84.67 (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. It's been fixed. DonQuixote (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Story Numbers: Episodes 1-5

We know that episodes 1-5 are standalones as they have different writers, different settings, different guest casts (all announced guest stars have been announced to be in only one episode), different directors, and they were all announced separately. We also know that episodes 8-10 are standalones as they are filmed out of order, among other things, but we have to leave TBA in the Story column as we don't know about episodes 6 & 7, which would affect it. However, if when the writers are announced they are different, we will know that 6 & 7 are separate. But as for episodes 1-5, we know they are standalones, if any of them were two-parters, they would have been announced as such, they would have the same writers, same directors, same setting, same guest cast, and they would be in the same production block. It is ridiculous to even suggest that they could be two-parters, they defy all that is necessary for two episodes to be a two-parter, plus it has been announced that the series will be mostly standalones, and the maximum number of two-parters there can be while remaining mostly standalones is two, in fact it is more likely than not that the only two-parter will be the finale. The only ambiguous episodes are 6 & 7 as nothing other than the director has been announced, and possibly episode 10 as the final three episodes are all written by Steven Moffat. If when the writers for episodes 6 & 7 are announced they are different, we will know they are standalones. The story numbers should be added for episodes 1-5 as we know for certain that they are standalones. Fan4Life (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

None of the above can be used in the article as it is entirely original research based on your own observations. Next time, please provide verifiable sources. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

How about this[7]? Fan4Life (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere in that article are the two-parters or story numbers declared. What exactly are you taking from that article? Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Filming on Block 5

After a Christmas break it seems filming on Block Five (Episodes 6/7) helmed by Daniel Nettheim has concluded. His Twitter account (https://twitter.com/danielnettheim/status/821408092327817216) posted this Instagram link (https://www.instagram.com/p/BPX7BAkBjgW/). Zaoramba (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

A better source should be found as soon as possible. While we know that these accounts are him, we're not meant to be using them as a source, as they are not verified accounts by the respective social media websites. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing Filming Information

We seem to be missing information on filming for certain production blocks. I can't find start or end dates for Block 4, helmed by Charles Palmer. And as of the time of this post, Block 5 has finished and Block 6 begun; an end date and start date for these blocks respectively are also required, but cannot seem to be found. Alex|The|Whovian^? 16:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Episode 6 & 7

DWM comfirmed it's episode 6 by Stephen Mofatt and episode 7 by Peter Harness. They are not written together — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.110.217 (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Xmas special 2017

Would it make sense to include the 2017 Xmas special here? This citation describes it as part of season 10. See also discussion at Draft_talk:Doctor_Who_(series_11). Bondegezou (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Best to keep the discussion to one place instead of two. For interested editor, the specific link is at Draft talk:Doctor Who (series 11) § 2017 Xmas special. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2017

Please can you add these dates to the Original Air Date part for each episode.

Original Air Date: Episode Two - 22nd April Episode Three - 29th April The Haunted Hub - 6th May Episode Five - 13th May Extremis - 20th May Episode Seven - 27th May Episode Eight - 3rd June Episode Nine - 10th June The Eaters of Light - 17th June Episode Eleven - 24th June Episode Twelve - 1st July DWISCOOL100 (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@DWISCOOL100:  Not done Per the hidden notes in the episode table: "Do NOT add an airdate here unless a source explicity states the airdate for THIS episode". Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2017

Add the title for Ep 2, 3, 4, & 5

Smile Thin Ice Knock, Knock Oxygen DWISCOOL100 (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Episode name should be changed

The first episode should be called 'The Pilot' as it's been announced by the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/entries/5df2c41c-cd8b-44a4-b40a-735aa8cc73fb - PaintTrash (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Already been done. DonQuixote (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017

Can someone please change the episode names to the new leaked ones? Source: https://twitter.com/whoniversalsyt/status/841701612838096898

Names: Ep1: The Pilot Ep2: Smile Ep3: On Thin Ice Ep4: Knock on Wood Ep5: Oxygen Ep6: Extremis Ep7: Like Yesterday Ep8: Truth Ep9: The Queen of Mars Ep10: The Eaters of Light Ep11: The Converted Ep12: The First Planet

P.S im new to wikipedia so im not sure im doing this right. E5390 (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please review Identifying Reliable Sources. DonQuixote (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The three parter

Yes it has been reported that episodes 6, 7 and 8 form a three parter, but can we wait until the episodes actually air before we state whether they form a single story or not? Last series we had a long debate about whether certain episodes were standalones or not, and, to avoid this sort of debate again, I recommend that we wait until the episodes air before we determine if they are a two/three parter or not. Despite how reliable the source is. BlueBlue11 (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Before, it was perfectly fine, as it is now. We use the information available as it stands, and then update it if necessary when/if new information comes out. The episodes themselves don't tell us whether the episodes are under the same story or not, reliable sources do that. As it stands, we have a source stating they're connected. If something else comes out that contradicts that, we update it. (The previous debate was only long because one editor kept beating a dead horse...) -- Alex^TW 13:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

Add these titles for Episode 2, 3, 4 & 5

Smile Thin Ice Knock, Knock Oxygen

89.242.16.24 (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

References

 Not done That's pure speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Locked Page

Slightly pathetic to protect the page for a whole month after one single person made a bad edit that wasn't even vandalism. 109.151.218.211 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The length of page protection increases every time it required protecting. Once it's unprotected, if the need comes across to protect it again, it will be longer than a month. This case was indeed vandalism, given the constant addition of unsourced titles. If you wish to edit the article, either log into an account, or submit an edit request. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 16:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok thank you. Apologies if I came across as aggressive. 109.151.218.211 (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

New episode titles

Can you please update the titles of many of the episodes please.

Episode 1- The Pilot Episode 2- Smile Episode 3- Thin Ice Episode 4- Knock Knock Episode 5- Oxygen

Source: http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/a-time-for-heroes-series-10-teaser-breakdown-83240.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facelesszedd (talk • contribs) 15:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done No reliable source says that they're the titles, and reliable sources contradict two of them--the ones that are already listed on this page. DonQuixote (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Episode 9 is called "Ice Warriors of Mars" Mark Gattis Revealed it Ben.kirk14 (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ben.kirk14: Your source? -- Alex^TW 10:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Fourth block filming?

Is there any information on when this took place? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.18.118 (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If there was, it would have been included... If you find this, you're more than welcome to add it. -- Alex^TW 19:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Filming End

"Filming for the entire series is set to conclude at the end of March 2017." This statement should probably be removed since it evidently hasn't happened. :) 109.151.218.211 (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Updated the wording on it. -- Alex^TW 09:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode links

The following are the non-redirecting links to the episodes.

However, please be aware of Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 28#Articles for episodes and specials first. If you disagree, please start a new discussion, as these rules are the ones that the WikiProject Television has used for years.

1. The Pilot (Doctor Who)
2. Smile (Doctor Who)
3. Thin Ice (Doctor Who)
4. Knock Knock (Doctor Who)
5. Oxygen (Doctor Who)
6. Extremis (Doctor Who)
7. The Pyramid at the End of the World
8. The Lie of the Land
9. The Empress of Mars (Doctor Who)
10. The Eaters of Light
11. World Enough and Time (Doctor Who)
12. The Doctor Falls

-- Alex^TW 10:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:The Pilot (Doctor Who)

Hi. I've made a draft article for the first episode of series 10. Feel free to edit it, but only move it into the mainspace when it has enough info and a consensus to move it has been achieved. Thank you. TedEdwards 19:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Writer/ director credit links?

Hi I am new on wikapedia so this might be a simple tradition but can I ask why you haven't linked various peoples wikI pages when you click on their name in the episode section.

I have found a page for Steven and only one of the episodes Rachel directs are linked with her name

Again, this could just be a custom I'm not aware of cause I am new here

Joe Joe Lea 951 (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to add and say you have linked Steven above Joe Lea 951 (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

See WP:OVERLINKING. DonQuixote (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

What DonQ said. We only need to link the first occurrence of their name, not every occurrence. -- Alex^TW 09:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok thx for replying as I said I am new and don't know everything yet. Joe Lea 951 (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Class does not have a Wikipedia link

The Wiki link for Class is [Class (2016 TV series)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.146.119 (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I'm not sure what your point is here? -- Alex^TW 00:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I think what the IP meant was he/she couldn't find a wikilink to Class (2016 TV series) in the article, hence the subtitle saying Class does not have a Wikipedia link. This is incorrect BTW, there is a wikilink. TedEdwards 21:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 Christmas Special

We know the Christmas special is written by Moffat, will air Dec 25, and will be Capaldi's last. I propose that it be added to this episode list. It's already listed with the shooting/production block schedule... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.147.22.94 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Re-added Normally we do group them together per what's listed on the DVDs, but we do not have that information yet, and as you stated, it is part of Series 10's production block. It also makes sense, based on it being Capaldi's regeneration episodes - all of the regeneration episodes for the revived series' have been included in their respective season tables, and not the next season's. -- Alex^TW 16:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Recording for the 2017 Christmas special will start in June 2017." The DWM source provided actually states that the special will wrap in June. It could start in May, so we don't know for sure. 109.151.218.211 (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the exact quote from DWM? -- Alex^TW 09:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"After this, work will begin on the 2017 Christmas Special, the final episode to be written by Steven, which will also be the last to star Peter Capaldi as the Doctor. Recording for the Twelfth Doctor's farewell is expected to wrap in June". :) 109.151.218.211 (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobody gonna respond or change page? 109.151.218.211 (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex^TW 00:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This is disregarding the discussion we had months ago about how to group Christmas specials. In that discussion we agreed to group them based on DVDs, and to presume Christmas specials to be part of the following series until DVD groupings are known. Nothing else matters, there is consensus. Fan4Life (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are responding to me, then you evidently haven't read the prior discussion properly. If not, could you? 109.151.218.211 (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus's can change. And presuming is WP:OR. Valid reasons have been given in this discussion as to the grouping of the Series 10 specials. -- Alex^TW 00:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

We can't have exceptions to consensus, this is subverting consensus, this small discussion about one Christmas special can't override the consensus established in the large discussion about how to group all Christmas specials past and future. This is basic Wikipedia policy, and it is being ignored. Fan4Life (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fan4Life: Well, yes it can overide consensus as consensus can change. And the consensus achieved last year is irrelevant, as the consensus was to group specials by boxsets; it did not say anything about what to do before boxsets had been published. You've got the wrong idea, as we can't assume this year's Christmas Special is Series 11's boxset, that is original research, and therefore definitly not the consensus. So the proposal is to put this year's Christmas special in this article, as the Christmas special is being produced with Series 10, until the boxset's contents are known, and in this proposal, there is no original research. TedEdwards 15:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense, it just that it appeared that this was an attempt to permanently group it with Series 10 and subvert the consensus on how to group Christmas specials, but now it has been clarified that this is just listing it somewhere until DVD boxsets are known. Fan4Life (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

How we group the episodes here is also simply how editors have determined it should be done. When something official comes along, like how the special is officially part of Series 10's production schedule and blocks, then that should automatically override any "decision" that editors have made. Don't forget, officially, specials aren't part of any season or series. -- Alex^TW 16:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 7 (The Pyramid at the End of the World) Writers

Episode 7 is co-written by Peter Harness and Steven Moffat: http://imgur.com/a/l2ri1#wpjaqTK

Someone fix this. LegoK9 (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done imgur is not a reliable source. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 05:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well it's a picture of Doctor Who Magazine (or maybe It was Radio Times. I didn't take the picture...), but that's beside the point. I just found an official Radio Times source: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-04-15/doctor-who-series-10-steven-moffats-episode-guide-7 LegoK9 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@LegoK9: Radio Times would have got it from Doctor Who Magazine, and that is the only source so far that has stated this information. Every other source that's been come across has given only Peter as the writer. It would be best to leave it as it currently is, and waits for the episode to air, and wait to see how the episode is credited on the night. -- Alex^TW 00:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: As I said, I didn't know if it was Doctor Who Magazine or Radio Times because I didn't take the picture. I just assumed it was DWM magazine, but looking back the imgur gallery says its from Radio Times magazine (their website is also promoting said issue), so the info is from Radio Times. Why would Radio Times get their info from DWM? It's the most recent info we have, and if we are saying Radio Times confirmed the titles for episodes 11 and 12 (www.doctorwhotv.co.uk is technically a fansite, so why are they more trust worthy than the most recent news from Radio Times?) then it shouldn't it confirm the writers for episode 7?

DWM 512 confirms this, so it's been re-added to the article. -- Alex^TW 11:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Story Numbers

I've re-added the story numbers for the rest of the series, per DWM 512. The below is a direct quote from Steven Moffat for the issue, detailing how the episodes of the three-part story arc in the middle of the series are separate stories; this means that the two-part finale is the only multi-part story of the series.

Then several things happened: Toby [Whithouse, writer of Episode 8, The Lie of the Land] wanted to do a story about a sort of Nineteen-Eighty-Four-like oppressive regime, Peter [Harness, co-writer – with Steven – of Episode 7, The Pyramid at the End of the World] wanted to do a story about Kung Fu Monks [which isn't quite how Episode 7 ended up; see preview pages 28-29], and Jamie was scripting a story in which the Doctor was [Snip! – Spoiler Ed]. As I was working on these stories, I thought that we could actually get a kind of four-episode arc out of that. I'd not call this a four-parter, or even a three-parter, because they're not, really. They're all still separate stories. But I thought we'd have a nice little 'To Be Continued' run in the middle of the series...

This is also supported by the story numbers that have already been given in the Doctor Who News guide. -- Alex^TW 11:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2017

Change "Veratis" to "Veritas" to correct spelling in description of "Extremis" Episode in episode synopsis grid. Belgaerix (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex^TW 13:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Filming

It should probably be clarified in the filming section that shooting for the fourth block as a whole ran from 17 October to 18 November 2016 - rather than just "Oxygen" (one episode didn't take a full month and we know it was filmed alongside episode 10). Also, more dates gained from the "Extremis" fact file could be added regarding block five. 109.147.164.168 (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Slavic Language Problem.

The Doctor says something that sounds like, "Previet" to the Russian soldier. The proper pronunciation is Priveet, spelled in Cyrillic as "привіт." I speak Ukrainian and this is a Ukrainian greeting rather than a Russian one, as far as I know. I tried the Google translator on "Hello" and "Hi" and "Greeting" in Russian and nothing like "Priveet" or "Pree-vi-et" (which the Doctor said) shows up. Slavic speakers will notice the inconsistency. Please let me know if there really is an alternate pronounciation for привіт in the actual Russian language. Thank you.

So far, this has not been included in any article, and personal requests for information are against Wikipedia not being a forum. If you have a source that states this and if it has any relevance to the series, please provide it. Also, when posting on a talk page, please sign your posts with ~~~~. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 05:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this would be interesting information to research and include in the article. I'm not wondering just for myself. I'm wondering for the viewers. How can anyone point out what could be enriching information if everything posted here is merely dismissed. *Sigh* I want this to be research and to appear in the Wiki please.

You are more than welcome to research it and provide reliable sources concerning why it is relevant. You also seem to have missed the last part of my most previous comment. -- Alex^TW 05:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Did you edit that? I thought at first you said if I wanted to know information not to be included in the Wiki to use the tildas. I will amend that. Thank you.2601:1C0:CB01:E9B0:2D3E:B6AA:6CD9:51CC ([[User talk:2601:1C0:CB01:E9B0:2D3E:B6AA:6CD9:51CC|talk]

Thank you for your patience as I learn the protocol. Please know I love series 10 and I'm enjoying it tremendously. I would just like the public view to be reported more accurately. I think that's fair. As for signing my posts, what do I sign it as? I don't have an account here that I've logged into. Do I just make up a user name? I've been using the triple tildas ever since it was pointed out to me I needed to do it.Okay, I will be PassionateWhoovian2601:1C0:CB01:E9B0:2D3E:B6AA:6CD9:51CC (talk)

Controversy

A lot of controversy surrounds Series 10. While Rotten Tomatoes reviews may be high (and this is doubtful, because there are no RT reviews for several episodes in the Wiki, only "tomatometer not available"), Amazon's reviews are not that great. 66% gave it 5 stars. The reason is that there is a lot of controversy surrounding it. and I believe it is important to point this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CB01:E9B0:2D3E:B6AA:6CD9:51CC (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

References

I'm not sure how one site where 66% of reviews are 5 stars instantly makes Series 10 controversial? The reason that Rotten Tomatoes display "Tomatometer Not Available" for several episodes is because they haven't aired yet, and reviews are only given for an episode once it airs. -- Alex^TW 23:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Amazon reviews are user generated and carry no weight. DonQuixote (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Reading the content of the reviews would reveal the reasons for the controversy. Multiple reviews mention that a sci-fi series is not an appropriate political platform. Not all people agree with the views presented. These remarks don't come from all homophobic or racist people. They come from people who are very sensitive to and tolerant of diverse cultures who just do not like the heavy-handed moralistic approach. I don't think it is a good idea to pretend these issues don't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CB01:E9B0:2D3E:B6AA:6CD9:51CC (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, as Don said, Amazon reviews are user generated and carry no weight. Amazon reviews can say whatever they want, but it won't get added into the article. -- Alex^TW 05:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope there is another way to document this controversy then, if Amazon is considered inconsequential. Why do you refer to Rotten Tomatoes as a source for the last episode on the Pyramids and the End of Time when there are not even any reviews there yet, anyway? See, there was info at the end of the episode page of the supposed Rotten Tomatoes rating when there was none for Pyramids and the End of Time. This action happened after the series was released and viewed and before RT posted anything. Why?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. We don't. -- Alex^TW 05:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Granted, I am sure that is true. I've already provided links to RT. There is no review for Season 10, Episode 7. I did just notice that you have therefore not included Episode yet in your graph. What are you tracking on RT anyway? Critics reviews or user reviews? If it's the critics, why? Why is that more important? Now that is a personal question which I will add ~~ to. I don't agree that is the best way to track it. I think user reviews are important to. But, I am not in charge of this page and just putting in my 2 cents. How can you say these are controversial topics and then give the episode a raving 0ver 90% rating? That's not controversy. That's the critics having a different viewpoint than the public. It's not a fair representation. Thank you for your understanding.

What, exactly, is the controversy? And please, sign your posts. It's the considerate thing to do. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 06:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's the critics, why? Why is that more important?

From critic: Critics are publicly accepted and, to a significant degree, followed because of the quality of their assessments or their reputation.

Also, critics publish in reliable sources that we can cite.

And anything dealing with public opinion or viewpoint must be from a reliable source that discusses public opinion or viewpoint. For example, this Washington Post article about public opinion. DonQuixote (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

FILMING

I've edited filming section to accommodate new information. Just needs copying over.

The read-through for the first production block took place on 14 June 2016. Filming for the first block of the tenth series began on 20 June 2016. Filming for the second episode took place in Valencia, Spain. Shooting for the first block concluded on 28 July 2016. The read-through for the second block took place on 18 July 2016, and filming began on 1 August 2016, starting with the third episode. Production on the 2016 Christmas special began on 5 September 2016 and wrapped on 30 September 2016. The read-through for "Oxygen" took place on 12 October 2016. Shooting on the fourth block began on 17 October and ended on 18 November 2016. Filming for the fifth block began on 23 November 2016, paused in December for a break over the holidays, before resuming on 3 January 2017 and concluding on 17 January 2017. The sixth block began filming concurrently on 16 January 2017, before concluding on 22 February 2017. On 6 March 2017 the BBC confirmed that the work on the final two episodes of the series had begun, with Rachel Talalay returning to direct her third series finale in a row.

Thank you. 86.177.102.192 (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

References

 Done -- Alex^TW 13:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes score

Did anyone notice that the Rotten Tomaotes score is wrong? There are 7 reviews, all of them are positive, but the tomatometer is at 96%. And none of the critics gave the season an average rating, but the average rating shows 3.75/10. What should be done in such condition like this? Sebastian James (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Rotten Tomatoes, but I'd say it's pretty clear: 1) the seven reviews are listed under "Season reviews" (i.e. season only), 2) the question mark next to "Tomatometer" describes the 96% score as "The percentage of approved Tomatometer critics who have given this season — or its episodes — a positive review." (i.e. season and episodes), and 3) there's then the "Average Episode Score" of 94% (i.e. episodes only). -- Alex^TW 05:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It basically works same with the films. There are no rotten review in the season reviews, so it mustn't be 96%. The episodes already have their own percentages and average scores. Something is definitely wrong, beacuse other tv series are not like this on the site. Sebastian James (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

As I said, 96% would be correct, as it takes into account both the season ratings and episode ratings. There is season reviews by themselves, episode reviews by themselves, and a combination. Else it would display as 100%, no? Rotten Tomatoes is a reliable source, it's not up to us to determine otherwise. -- Alex^TW 07:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is, of course, a reliable source. But all the episode percentages and the season overall are listed as "fresh", while the average score is 3.75/10 (means negative). This is not normal. Sebastian James (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Rating

finale rating is 5.29 not 5.30. says BARB 109.158.3.3 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Source states 5.295 but seems to have some inconsistency with rounding depending on where you view it on the site at the moment:5.29 5.29 5.30. Dresken (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

"An icy planet"

It's meant to be the South Pole at the end of The Tenth Planet part 4, surely? Hence why the First Doctor is also going on about how he refuses to change because it's ridiculous etc. I think this should be corrected.62.190.148.115 (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Source? -- Alex^TW 08:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Source that it's an icy planet and not just an icy part of a planet with all sorts of other climates elsewhere on it? 62.190.148.115 (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

At the very least it needs rewording to something like "snowy wastes" as on related articles? 62.190.148.115 (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, possible source 10:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.190.148.115 (talk)

And another one 62.190.148.115 (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I do reckon it is going to turn out to be the South Pole during the Tenth Planet - I feel it really alludes to it - but it is not confirmed in the episode - and both articles you provide acknowledge they are speculating - so not really good enough for a source for the plot. Although "icy planet" might be overstating it though - we only see a small area of where the TARDIS lands and we probably should not also presume the whole planet is like it. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Monks Trilogy

Do we have confirmation from DWM on whether or not it's a three parter yet or are we still waiting on that? Microbat98 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Under Episodes: The sixth, seventh and eighth episodes of the series, "Extremis", "The Pyramid at the End of the World", and "The Lie of the Land", constitute a three-part arc while remaining separate stories. Source provided: "Truth or Dare". Doctor Who Magazine. No. 512. 4 May 2017. p. 27. -- Alex^TW 16:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Further: Talk:Doctor Who (series 10)/Archive 1#Story Numbers 2 -- Alex^TW 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who (series 10)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 01:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Some Dude From North Carolina, thank you for your review! I believe I've covered all of the changes requested. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Infobox looks good but I would recommend improving the poster's non-free use rationale with this template.
• Remove the comma after "revival in 2005".
• Add a comma after "Toby Whithouse".
• Remove the comma after "worked on the show".
• Add a comma after "plots".
  •  All done -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Episodes

• Remove the comma after "aliens' ship".
• Remove the comma after "investigates the puddle".
• "crew were inefficient" → "crew was inefficient"
• "which leads" → "that leads"
• Remove the comma after "Time Lord technology".
• Add a comma after "Chinese".
• Remove the comma after "offers his consent".
• Remove the comma after "another solution".
• Add a comma in between "however the".
• "humanity recall" → "humanity recalls"
• Add a comma after "The Doctor, Bill".
• Add a comma after "The Doctor, Nardole".
• Remove the comma after "fights off the Cybermen".
• Remove the comma after "body back to his TARDIS".
• Remove the comma after "attempts to stop it".
• Add a comma after "displaced, confused".
• The summaries of "The Pilot", "Extremis", "The Eaters of Light", "World Enough and Time", "The Doctor Falls", and "Twice Upon a Time" need to have less than 200 words.
  •  All done -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Casting

• The second reference after "Radio Times" is missing a website parameter.
• Can the four references after "first episode of the series" be distributed?
• Mark the only source after "every episode" as dead.
• The citation after "episode of Doctor Who" doesn't mention the series.
• Add a comma after "Aleksandar Jovanovic".
• Mark the reference after "Missy in the series" as dead.
  •  All done -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Production

• Add a comma after "6 March 2017".
• Remove the comma after "12 June 2017".
• Remove the comma after "filming of Class".
  •  All done -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Release

• Add a comma after "On 13 March 2017".
• Add a comma after "Mackie, Moffat".
• Add a comma after "Mackie, Lucas".
• Add a comma after "Capaldi, Mackie".
• "less episodes" → "fewer episodes"
• "United States and Canada" → "the United States, and Canada"
• Add a comma after "16 April in Australia".
  •  All done -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Reception

• Every section here looks good.

Soundtrack

• No issues here.

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·