Jump to content

Talk:Doctor Who series 13/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Filming Begins.

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/a34645768/doctor-who-series-13-shorter-filming-starts/

Filming has officially begun so this page can be moved to the mainspace. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- /Alex/21 23:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who § Specials in episode tables and corresponding home media releases

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who § Specials in episode tables and corresponding home media releases. The discussion concerns which series to list specials from the Chibnall/Whittaker era under, restarted in response to my recent WP:BOLD edit [1]. U-Mos (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Plot continuity?

"Jodie Whittaker returns for her third series as the Thirteenth Doctor, the most recent incarnation of the Doctor, an alien Time Lord". To me this seems to be incorrect:

In the last episode "The Timeless Children" it is clearly stated that the Doctor is no Time Lord after all, not even related to them, but the child that Tacteun found beneath the gate to "another dimension". Or this there a plot twist that will only be revealed in the first episode of this new series?

https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/jodie-quits-julia-foster-is-the-14th-doctor-with-david-tennant-as-companion-93578.htm states that Wittaker filmed here final scenes "late last year", which would then be 2019 (2020-1), and Julia Foster becoming the 14th doctor with David Tennant (!) as the companion. But it could be an April Fools' joke, look at the date stamp of this article.

And https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/bradley-walsh-and-tosin-cole-on-their-emotional-doctor-who-exits-94374.htm talks about the "officially confirmed" departure of Bradley Walsh and Tosin Cole from the show. 2001:A61:B8E:2A01:758E:5AB5:2BFC:58E7 (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The first link is an April Fool's joke, given that Jodie has already been seen filming episodes for Series 13. And yes, Walsh and Cole are indeed leaving, and this is included in the article. -- /Alex/21 23:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
You evaded the point that the sentence that the Doctor is a Time Lord is effectively false, after "Timeless Children". He/She is just an alien from "anywhere". 2001:A61:BD4:FC01:A1EC:A178:4F0:B90F (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
And that is already noted at the relevant episode articles and The Doctor (Doctor Who), where their species and home planet are still listed as Time Lord and Gallifrey respectively. -- /Alex/21 11:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who: Flux

This is the title of the series. Surely the article needs a name change now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.13.244 (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh this is gonna be fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtticusFink6 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The article won't be moved per WP:NCTV, similar to how Doctor Who: Trial of a Time Lord is at Doctor Who (season 23) instead. I did however create a redirect to this article from Doctor Who: Flux. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good example of why to keep it here for the time being. --Masem (t) 19:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Other examples would be Big Brother 7 (American season) and Big Brother 21 (American season) instead of Big Brother: All-Stars or The Amazing Race 8 instead of The Amazing Race: Family Edition. These are reality shows but naming-wise the situation isn't much different, the exact part to reference in NCTV would be WP:TVSEASON. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The specific part of WP:TVSEASON states that if one season is named something special, this should be noted through redirects and in the article's WP:LEAD, but the article should be named in the same fashion as the other season pages. Therefore, this article will always reside at Doctor Who (series 13). -- /Alex/21 23:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

All the above makes sense but then what about the pages Torchwood: Children of Earth and Torchwood: Miracle Day which do not obey the same rule? Should they be changed? Panda815 (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, they are the only season articles for Torchwood (Torchwood (series 1) and Torchwood (series 2) are redirects), so all existing season articles for Torchwood conform with each other. If, however, the former two seasons had articles, then yes, the latter articles would exist at Torchwood (series 3) and Torchwood (series 4) respectively. -- /Alex/21 12:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Flux or Doctor Who: Flux

In the lead should the subtitle of the season be referred to as "Flux" or "Doctor Who: Flux"? They both seemed to used pretty interchangeably

(The above sorting does not count cases in which "Flux" is used to reference an in-universe element, only the series/season as a whole)

In addition all official social media accounts use "Doctor Who: Flux" [11], [12], which is what I'm leaning towards. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The Doctor Who prefix is redundant in an article about a season of Doctor Who. Same for Season 16 (The Key to Time) and Season 23 (The Trial of a Time Lord). -- /Alex/21 12:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Redundant in every usage, yes. I don't however think it would be redundant in its first usage. Take a BLP for example, you'd use the subjects full name in the first use and then likely use just a last name or common name throughout the rest of the article. If sources are primarily referring to it with the prefix then we should as well. TheDoctorWho Public (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, while I have restored the un-bolding of Flux in the lead, I've also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Bolding alternate titles. -- /Alex/21 12:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion by the way, I personally couldn't care whether it's bolded or not, I just want to make sure that the article follows MOS. TheDoctorWho Public (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

"For the second time..."

Currently restored to the page, at the top of the episodes section, by Alex 21, is the following:

For the first time since The Trial of a Time Lord (1986), and thus the second time in the programme's history, the series tells one complete story across its entirety, rather than separate episodic stories.

The "second time" clause needs to be removed, because: a) It isn't, as Doctor Who (season 16) aka The Key to Time also does this, regardless of whether it has separately numbered stories or not; b) Story numbers aren't a reliable guide anyway, through being arbitrary and inconsistent - as The Mysterious Planet etc. note, some sources use separate numbers for the Trial serials as well, and how do we know there won't be sources that do the same for Flux in the coming months?; c) It's WP:TRIVIA; d) "thus" doesn't make sense within the sentence, as there could be any number of prior whole-season stories before Trial of a Time Lord (and, again, there's one other); e) It's not in the source attached to the sentence. U-Mos (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

a) Season 16's article even clearly states "Season 16 consists of one long story arc encompassing six separate, linked stories"; an obviously different position to Series 13, in which it is reliably sourced that they are not separate; see below.
b) Story numbers are barely "arbitrary and inconsistent" on Wikipedia, as we have settled on a numbering system based on years of reliable sources and clear consensuses. Hence, there are two instances where the season spans one story: Season 23, and Series 13. Nor do we need to consider other sources for Series 13 "in the coming months", as we have a source that stated, verbatim, "Unlike prior seasons, this year's Doctor Who will tell a singular story." (However, that being said, hopefully we can consider other sources in the coming year, as the Centenery Special is set to be the 300th story, and reliable sources covering that will set an even clearer standard, in a similar manner to "Planet of the Dead" being the 200th story.)
c) The sentence is in the exact same vein as other analysis in similar articles, such as Doctor Who (series 7) or Doctor Who (series 9), or Doctor Who (series 6) and its mid-season break, this is not a new feature.
d) There could be. But there is not. Problem solved.
e) Counting does not require a source. Could the sentence be reworded? Sure, and I've attempted a copyedit to do just that. I'd recommend we stick to that. -- /Alex/21 00:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Regarding c), the examples you give indicate earlier examples of similar forms, as the Trial mention does - no precedent for cataloguing how many times that has happened, even if we overlook how misleading it is. Though if anything you're drawing a line here between Key to Time/Trial (separate but linked stories) and Flux (by current indications, more serialised still, not that we know how the episodes are structured yet), which suggests Trial shouldn't be mentioned at all. U-Mos (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Series 7: "For the first time in the show's history". Series 11: "the second time in the programme's history". Again, not a new scenario and a clear precedent, and that's only looking at each of the revived era series articles. However, now you're advocating for its complete removal, even though it is certainly reliably sourced with a site that clearly discusses the differences between Season 16, Season 23 and Series 13: While a single-season narrative is new to the modern Doctor Who series, they have done versions of that in the classic series. The show’s 16th season had the overarching narrative of the quest for the Key to Time, though it still broke up its episodes into smaller serials. Same for season 23, which cased its four serials in an overarching narrative, “The Trial of a Time Lord.” No lines are being drawn, we know exactly how the episodes are structured: this year's Doctor Who will tell a singular story. The first column is the numbered story, and "singular" means "one"; i.e. one story number across six episodes. -- /Alex/21 01:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, found that quote in a different source in the development section - that should be used at this point too, surely? So yes, 16/23/Flux considered similar forms, supported by a source. I think it makes sense to acknowledge that accurately, though as I indicate if you prefer to distinguish between Flux and the earlier whole season multi-story arcs then the comparison could be removed in its entirety. U-Mos (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
It is used, yes, to support the fact that Season 16 is a different format to Season 23 and Series 13. I've noted the copyedit and will provide further editing to differentiate between the "second" and "third" precedents, so that both scenarios are considered and nothing needs to be removed. -- /Alex/21 01:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Episode articles

I've been having an early think about episode articles for this series. Looking at the other whole-season serials with Doctor Who (season 16) and Doctor Who (season 23), these both had separate titles for their serials, and thus could have separate articles. If that's going to be the case here, then that's fine, we can have separate articles for the separately-titled episodes.

However, what if all episodes of this season are titled "Flux, Part X", what do we do with the articles? Typically, multi-part "serial" episodes of the revival era have one article under their umbrella title; see The End of Time (Doctor Who) and Spyfall (Doctor Who). There would be no point in having Doctor Who (series 13) and then an article at Flux (Doctor Who) for all six episodes under the same title. Do we then make separate articles for each "Flux, Part X"? Thoughts? (Note that this is me just getting in early to plan - this entire paragraph could be redundant if separate titles are announced.) -- /Alex/21 04:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think everything will depend upon the coverage of sources as episodes air. I do feel the need to mention though that I don't like the idea of episode article notability being dependent on Part X. versus an individual episode title. Was the episode produced differently just because it used one over the other? Does the article receive different coverage if one type is used over the other? I find it unlikely that an episode won't get a review or production information from a certain website only because the episode was named Part X instead of RandomTitle and visa versa. That said why does titling determine how many articles we create? Now that the episodes are well in the past, is there any difference between Spyfall and Ascension of the Cyberman/Timeless Children other than the fact that one received separate episode titles and the other didn't? If not then why did they receive different treatment? One article vs. two should depend on what is available in sources and how we can apply that to WP guidelines, where possible, not dependent on titles.
I kind of went on a slight tangent there but moving back to the actual question at hand and applying what I said above: it will depend on sourcing at hand. If the Flux (Doctor Who) scenario you gave plays out then it is possible we would need to take a similar approach to what was done at Torchwood: Children of Earth, because as you said, the second article would be pointless. (the only thing I'd change is instead of a prose plot, I would add episode summaries into the table). On the other hand even if they are all named Part X but each part has enough significant and independent coverage to create the episode article we typically do, then by all means go ahead and create them. I'll just reiterate what we shouldn't do is solely base the decision on what the episode titles are. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Currently, I'd say plan for no separate articles regardless of titling. We already know that production constraints were a large part of the decision to go serialised, so can expect locations/effects/casting etc. to not be confined to single episodes. Of course, if notablitly distinct to particular episodes occurs, articles can be created - like the handful of episode articles within Twin Peaks (season 3), for example - but I agree with TheDoctorWho this shouldn't be automatic. U-Mos (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Now that we know episodes will have different titles, I assume separate episode pages are confirmed? Panda815 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The episode pages are not "confirmed" because notability is not inherited, just because this article is notable enough to exist doesn't mean the episode articles will be. I do however, think it is ever so slightly more likely that individual episode pages will exist. It ultimately still depends on the amount of sources that are available when the time comes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not inherited, no, but given standard practice across the past 38 seasons, it is very likely, almost guaranteed, that they will indeed have their own episode articles. -- /Alex/21 21:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
However, concerning this, we need to stick to what reliable sources, including the BBC episode guide, state the title is, just as we did for Doctor Who (series 12) and the hidden notes for the first two episodes. -- /Alex/21 23:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

teaser info?

Should we put in information about the teaser with the Doctor warning us about the Flux? Visokor (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe we should. It was an important part of the overall promotion. The Missing Aliens promotion where you could phone The Doctor to recieve a voice message from her along with billboard adverts throughout the United Kingdom could also be included. - FlowD (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Numbering

This is not, as the lede currently opens:

The thirteenth series of the British science fiction television programme Doctor Who...

but the 13th series since the reboot. Is there any reason we cannot be more accurate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It is most certainly the thirteenth series of the programme overall, as the one in aired in 1975–76 was the thirteenth season; there is a distinct difference. However, we do clarify this in the very same paragraph: It is the thirteenth to air following the programme's revival in 2005, and the thirty-ninth season overall. If the issue is with it being the very first sentence and not precise enough", the current form of sentence has passed 12 GA's for all of the past revived-era series. -- /Alex/21 12:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Episode titles

For Series 12's episode table, we titled "Spyfall, Part 1" per what the BBC titled the episode in its guide, as opposed to the title card of the episode, per Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources as opposed to the primary source that is the episode. I believe we need to do the same here; we should drop the "Chapter" prefixes from the titles.

These are only a few examples indicating that the prefix is interchangable, and none of the links in the External Links section uses the Chapter prefix. Thus, we should stick to just the base title, and note the prefix title in the articles in prose through reliable sources. Thoughts? -- /Alex/21 01:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel that its incorrect to say that "The BBC title the episode as simply [...]" because the title card and the press release (which both use the prefix) are also technically from the BBC. It seems better to say that the BBC titles it with the prefix in some places and then without it in other places. That said, regardless of whether its right way or wrong way I know that you're going to get your way with things 90% of the time, especially when it comes to Doctor Who articles so I'm not here to debate which way it should go because 1) I don't currently have the energy to argue with you, and 2) frankly I just don't care enough, especially with the trouble its already caused up to this point. I will just say however, that whichever way we end up going we should create redirects at any of these potential alternate titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDoctorWho (talk • contribs) 03:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Um. What? I was hoping to simply have a discussion over the idea, I'm not saying that we have to change it, but rather starting this thread instead of making any bold changes. If we agree that it should stay the same, then it stays the same, I just wanted opinions and ideas. I'm actually incredibly offended that you took the discussion that way, especially suggesting that it's automatically an argument.
Do you want to actually discuss the content now? Because if you do, I'd actually point out that you're quite right concerning your first two sentences. They're definitely all from the BBC (press release, episode guide, the episode itself), which is why I then included several external reliable sources for comparison. So, should the alternation seen in the BBC's listings support removing the prefix or sticking to it? Can we then compare this to what we've done in previous series? -- /Alex/21 03:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
For what its worth RT lists the season as Flux as opposed to numbering it as a series which may contribute to the odd titling (no other series includes a prefix, i.e. "Fugitive of the Judoon" not "Series 12: Fugitive of the Judoon," as opposed to this series "Flux: [TITLE]"). Official social media accounts still seem to alternate ([13]). Personally, I wouldn't consider the BBC episode guide a secondary source, although its not the episode itself anything BBC-related in my opinion should be considered primary as they are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. For any weight that it holds, BBC America (since its partially owned outside of the BBC) also uses Flux: The Halloween Apocolypse. If we're looking at purely secondary sources:
I'm not seeing any one uniform method used for titling, which has honestly been happening since the first episode title was announced. If this is any indication we can expect the madness to continue. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Then in the absence of any uniform titling method, should we then stick to the easiest option; i.e. the base title "The Halloween Apocalypse"? Although they are not a reliably site and their content is based on discussion, just as ours is, the TARDIS Wikia does the same, noting the "Flux" and "Chapter One" titles in the lead. I feel like this would be the best way to avoid the madness of the next six weeks, but I'm always open to suggestions. -- /Alex/21 15:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
We definitely could. When and I guess its a big if a uniform titling ever comes along we can always change it again at that time. Either along with or in place of mentioning the prefixes we could add something along the lines of "each episode is often referred to as being a chapter in the overall story" and use any of the numerous sources that both of us mentioned? TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
That certainly works for me. I'll leave it for a couple days to allow anyone else to contribute or propose any other suggestions; if there's no further word, we can make the changes. -- /Alex/21 03:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Not to throw a wrench into things - Comcast/Xfinity is listing the episodes as "Flux:XXXXX" here in the US. I am not suggesting we use that especially since we default to the country where the show originates. I just mention it in case newbies start to use this in any edits they make. Gosh this makes me all nostalgic about The Trial of a Time Lord. I wonder what the talk page threads would have been like if WikiP had been around in '86 :-) MarnetteD|Talk 11:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Audience

This series is (thus far, and unlikely to change) getting the lowest ratings and AI of the revival. Whether that's worth mentioning or not seems to vary from program to program. I'm in favour, but not gonna put effort into arguing with DWs' wiki owners, just mentioning it for discussion...for after the final episode, and assuming it doesn't suddenly get a lot more popular & appreciated, of course. 81.135.238.107 (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You would need to cite a reliable source that states that this is notable. DonQuixote (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Exactly what Don said. The reason we don't include user reviews is per WP:USERGEN, in that user-generated content is not reliable. (And if you think about it, it's in exactly the same manner as how you can't use Wikipedia as a source because of how it's user-generated.) -- /Alex/21 03:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a serial

This set of programmes is a serial, not a season nor a series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E700:8B01:D8F4:11C1:946B:1187 (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that you need to cite a reliable source that makes that distinction, Trial of a Time Lord set the precedent that it can be both a season (or series) and a serial. DonQuixote (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
It is a series that consists of one serial. Regardless, this article will remain titled thus, per WP:TVSEASON. -- /Alex/21 11:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who_series_13/Archive_1&oldid=1222085270"