Talk:Doctor Who series 4/Archive 1

Archive 1

Protection

Unlike a related article, this one has hardly anybody adding unsourced stuff. It's basically all Lugiadude (however many capitals he wants, sorry, I haven't memorised where they are). I don't want to be personal, but I think it would be better to block one user from editing (albeit briefly) than to add FULL protection to the article as has been done here. That means only administrators can edit! How many Doctor Who loving administrators are there? As far as I understand it, of the millions of Wikipedia editors, only about 2,000 are administrators at all. Now, both options really need a timeframe. thus, on anotehr note, if we are going to keep full protection, I'd like to know exactly how long it's going to last. I'm pretty sure that the aforesaid article has only ever needed partial protection. I just think that, when your problem is mainly a single registered non-administrator, there are smarter tactics than full protection. 90.206.183.218 (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. The problem was one user (a valid registered one at that) who mistakenly wants to include speculation. I have not checked but I suspect he is new to wikipedia. He will agree that speculation does not belong in articles and that wikipedia is built on valid citation of reliable sources. He should be encouraged to debate points on the talk pages and continue to contribute referenced material on article pages. If he were to continue pushing unsubstantiated speculation in articles he would then deserve a ban. We need to include and educate, not become over protective of a well monitored page. I would also encourage 90.206.183.218 to register as he/she seems to have some useful points to make and they come better from a registered user than an IP address, or did he/she just forget to login? --Brian R Hunter (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He, by the way. I'm not registered. I have considered the matter a fair bit, but I'd rather not register to be perfectly honest. Just to add to what I said before, full protection means that every single time another guest star gets announced, or we wonder which episodes ought to have redirects, or we want to tidy up a quotation, choice of citation or description of it, or add another, ... Well, there's still plenty of scope for editing the article. Should every single one require a discussion on the talk page of the article? 90.206.183.218 (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I respect your wish for anonymity and agree with your comments on protection; freezing the article seems unwarranted. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

i've just checked Stifle's user talk page. His/her policy on stuff s/he protected being unproteceted is that s/he won't object, but will leave it to those who have the power to do it to do it themselves. That sounds like s/he isn't that easy to persuade to do it themselves though, i.e. another administrator would have to do it. If I remember correctly, Edokter made the first post-protection edit, but clearly had no intention of cancelling the protection. Perhaps I should bring to Edokter's attention our concerns on the Edokter user talk page rather than just discussing the matter here. 90.206.183.218 (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) If there is a weight of opinion towards a consensus: I agree, the protection seems unwarranted. In fact, I thought it was generally policy not to full-protect articles if at all possible, and so far as I can see it didn't really meet the criteria at WP:PROT. Semi protection, maybe. Stephenb (Talk) 17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Stephenb. The trouble is we need an admin. Any suggestions on who? 90.206.183.218 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to Zzuuzz.90.206.183.218 (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the first post, I'm not sure what to think of. None of my stuff is unsourced. All I've added is that the main antagonist has the lower half of a Dalek and the upper half of a humanoid. Which IS sourced by a certain CBBC article (which is obviously official). I don't see the problem with what I've been adding. And a ban is most certainly not needed - like I said, all things I've added have been sourced LuGiADude (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that I supported a ban on you, just that I did not support full page protection over a content dispute. The problem people had was your adding of possibly indicating the return of Davros, which although quite likely, (in my opinion), was unsourced. The other part of your change is what we have ended up with and I hope you can agree with the choice of words. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add also that my ban suggestion was not only just an example of a preferable approach to full protection, but also would have been intended only as specific to this one article, preferably briefly (not that I could have set the terms, obviously). With your more recenta additions to the discussion on this talk page, you have demonstrated nothing like that will be needed now anyway. 90.206.183.218 (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Hey. I've redirected all of the episodes not covered by DWM yet (basically, 4.6, then 4.8 through 4.13), because at the moment, they are just cast lists with a soap-line synopsis. DWM not covering the episode makes the amount of source material nearly non-existant, so we have 10 one-line articles sitting around for 2-11 weeks. (By the way, when I'm saying "covered", I'm counting Script Doctors, in case anyone wants to have a go at doing SITL/FOTD) It also makes the amount of speculation jump up manyfold - there were all five companions coming back listed in the infobox for "Journey's End". Sceptre ^(talk) 20:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted a handful of these - the return of Rose in Turn Left and the notes about Troughton and Davidson's daughter in those episodes seem to me significant information that warrants the existence of the stub. My logic here is, essentially, that there is no doubt that we will eventually have full articles on these episodes, so there is no harm in starting them as soon as we have verifiable out-of-universe information to add. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the table under Production section

There#'s a problem with the table under the Production section - the episodes are in the wrong order, I don';t yet know how to fix wiki tables, so if someone else could take care of it? Thanks 03swalker (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That is because they are sorted by the order they were produced, not the order they will be broadcast. — Edokter • Talk • 19:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cybermen in 2008 Christmas Special

I was looking at Outpost Gallifrey when I found a link to http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/swanews/display.var.2188951.0.cybermen_invade_newport.php It says that the Cybermen are in the special and filming took place at St Woolos cementary in Newport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.50.171 (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Episode ordering

What's with the episode ordering on this page? They're out of broadcast order; "Voyage of the Damned" should be first, then "Partners in Crime", etc. fraggle (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In the production section? It's ordered by date of production. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation error

The description for The Poison Sky says "Sontaran's" in a context where there should be no apostrophe. Normally I'd fix it, but someone decided we need to stop unregistered people from replacing TBA with War on Skaro. Sadly someone who was registered then did the same thing, but never mind. I'm not here to question protection policy. I just wanted to point out that the apostrophe shouldn't be there. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to fix

As it's locked I can't do it. Please link the "Voyage of the Damned" episode to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_of_the_Damned_(Doctor_Who) and not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_of_the_Damned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.218 (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Unicorn and the Wasp

Where does this title come from? Todays episode was called "Nemesis" MaKamitt 23:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• never mind, seems to be mistitling on iPlayer that had me thinking the title was Nemesis MaKamitt 00:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The Doctor Who Confidential for The Unicorn and the Wasp was called "Nemesis". --SoWhy ^Talk 14:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added the description for that episode, as it was previously blank. Digifiend (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Air dates for episodes 10/11

Doctor Who Magazine issue 398 gives the obvious dates of June 14 and 21, according to Sceptre, who has added this information to the article List of Doctor Who serials. These dates have also been added to the articles for the relevant episodes. I think they should also be added here. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Mid Series 4 Trailer

Shall we add anything about the trailer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carta025 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The half-Dalek half-humanoid foe put in an appearance. That's probably relevant, although it's actually kinda hard to tell the top half is humanoid... I'm sure it is, but maybe the press were aware of Davros and jumped to conclusions. Can probably get better references for details of upcoming episodes, but it'd probably count as original research to infer which episode each part comes from. The stars going out is new, though. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, close analysis shows that there's a black rectangle over the top-half, disguised as smoke, so we'll never be able to tell. —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Could the reference to the figure be reinstated, though? It was removed on the basis that it was "speculative" and the reference was a video only watchable in the U.K., but the section removed also included a non-speculative section with a link that was neither a video nor U.K.-only. Link to the edit in question: [1] 86.136.156.205 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Even more sources of air dates

1 2 These links (bizarrely one uses an extra underscore in its URL) are BBC press releases confirming the airdates of episodes 10 and 11 to be June 14 and 21. I think on this basis these dates should now be added. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good links, I will add them. --SoWhy ^Talk 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

4x12 - TBA

Now that we have 7 episodes already, I think there must be a way to find out what episode 4x12 will be called. TVRage lists it as "War on Skaro" but I know that that's not an acceptable source. I wonder though where they got that from... --SoWhy ^Talk 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We simply won't know until the BBC announces it. — Edokter • Talk • 14:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Which should be only two more days. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be today then, so people, keep a close eye on bbc.co.uk (or BBCi/Ceefax) and Digital Spy. Digifiend (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Episode 12

is The Stolen Earth - [2] 129.215.149.99 (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's in the article now^^ --SoWhy ^Talk 12:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet another air date

Episode 12 is on June 28. The URL we are currently citing for its title confirms this, yet it has not been added to the relevant table yet. I'm just pointing this out. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, taken care of. — Edokter • Talk • 15:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Running Themes/References

I know it's a bit early, but already in each of the two episodes that have been shown, we've had references to the Shadow Proclamation, Venus (as a planet in episode one, the god in episode two), and to alien homeworlds mysteriously going missing. Is it worth creating a section on running references? Kelvingreen (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion: wait to see which of these also occurs in the next episode, then summarise these references' occurrences, not to mention anything that might be found to occur in episodes 2/3 but not 1. Say Venus appears next time but a lost planet does not - point that out too! Thus, I would bring it up in the article, but not during this week. Admittedly the "wait a week" option is quite boring, but anyway that's what I would do. 90.206.183.218 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; a this early stage, the repeated references could be coincidences. I doubt it, but it's best to wait. I just wanted to start people thinking about it now, so we can all keep our eyes out in coming weeks. Kelvingreen (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking along similar lines; apparently the Medusa Cascade references are part of it too, (The Master referred to it at some point,) but since we still don't know what the hell the Medusa Cascade is, that doesn't really help. I thought for a while that it could be related to the oracles' being turned to stone in Fires of Pompeii, but I think I'd be clutching at straws. Radical AdZ (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice any references to Venus or to missing planets in episode 3. The Ood's final comments to the Doctor (that his song may soon be coming to an end) sound portentous, especially in the context of the final episode of the series (Journey's End).

Also, there is a second mention of how strange it is that all of the bees are going missing...86.132.185.122 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone else confirm seeing a drawing of both Rose and a Wolf (although the wolf doesn't seem to have ears) behind CAL in the episode "silence in the library"? (around 30 mins in). to me it looks like it might be another subtle reference.--Qualal (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

FotD date

This BBC page confirms the date as 7 June, and the articles for that episode and serials in general already have it cited. Someone who is registered will have to add it here though. Just out of curiosity, what was the reason for semi-protection this time? Probably edits over the episode so many people think they can name. 90.212.113.242 (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Edokter • Talk • 13:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's semi-protected until July 1st, by which time we should know the title of episode 12 and people can stop adding unsourced drivel such as "The Stolen Earth" and "War on Skaro". —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Stolen Earth? That's a new one. The Stolen Planet was a rumoured name for the following episode. July 1st, eh? This talk page won't be gathering dust! It's a good idea though. 90.212.113.242 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Episode 12 will have been broadcast by then, if 11 is on June 21st, 12 should be on June 28th - unless football gets in the way... Digifiend (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Which it won't, as it turns out. Digifiend (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Davros

In a CBBC article, it said that there was a trailer and it said 'The main enemy looked like the bottom half was a dalek and the top looked like a human figure' Could it be mentioned in this article that this is possibly Davros? LuGiADude (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC) PS Here's the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7320000/newsid_7325700/7325783.stm LuGiADude (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says "Who they'll be fighting is still a mystery, but the person who might be the main villain was shown partly hidden in shadow. The villain had the bottom half of a Dalek, while its top half looked like it could be human." To me it sounds like Davros too; but that is speculation and wikipedia tries hard to avoid that. We can discuss on talk pages but the article cannot include it until a reliable source can be quoted. There are plenty of blogs and other websites that welcome speculation but wikipedia is not one of them. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There's another half-human, half-Dalek, which strikes me as deliberate. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, it doesn't say 'half human half dalek', it says 'the bottom half of a Dalek, while its top half looked like it could be human..'

Does Dalek Sec have the bottom half of a Dalek? No, he has humanoid legs. In fact for Sec it's the other way round, bottom half of a HUMANOID, TOP half of a Dalek. I know there is a chance this isn't Davros, so I'm not saying 'this DOES indicate the return of davros', I'm saying 'it MAY indicate the return of Davros'. So why the constant reverts?LuGiADude (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"May" doesn't cut it. It has to be "will". Saying "humanoid" is better than saying "the top half looked like it could be human": the suffix "-oid" means "similar to" (OED). Sceptre ^(talk) 22:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it may indicate Davros, it may be a red herring; I doubt it is Dalek Sec... the point is we don't know and have no source other than your own, my own and ano's own speculation. This is an encyclopedia, show me another one that includes un-cited speculation. I also agree with Sceptre that humanoid is a suitable short form for looked like it could be human. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying :( I'm saying that it doesn't just say 'half dalek half human' - which could mean a human covered in Dalek plates (pfft) it actually says the top half is humanoid and the bottom half is... er, dalekoid. Which isn't made clear by the ambiguous 'half human half dalek' Sorry if I'm being a bit picky... LuGiADude (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not picky at all. I have changed the words. Hope all can agree that this is a better fit. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

well, i think it is. Having said that, it feels a little long. Apart from a direct quotation, I have no suggested improvement. It's probably fine staying as it is. 90.206.183.218 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Can people stop changing it back to HALF DALEK HALF HUMANOID, or whatever, like I said IT'S TOO AMBIGUOUS. Which half is Dalek? Not mentioned. Saying THE TOP HALF IS HUMANOID does show which half. For God's sake. LuGiADude (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Have another look. Since I changed the words to say "the lower half Dalek and the upper half humanoid" on 10 April, the words have not been altered. Please do not let this get to you, it is only Doctor Who. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry lol I have Firefox which saved sessions ;) And on one tab was Doctor Who (series 4) which had the version which said 'half dalek half humanoid' :P Anyway I agree that the choice of words is perfect :) LuGiADude (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is only speculation but I was on http://www.sylvestermccoy.com/newdoctorwho/ and it said this: The Doctor finds out about the messages from Rose but can't do anything about it when suddenly the alternate reality holding Mickey, Jackie and Rose collapses, sending them back to their original universe.

Confirmed that this final story will feature Rose, Mickey, Pete, Jackie, Sarah Jane, Captain Jack, Martha Jones and K9 as well as Donna and the Doctor. It'll also feature Davros played by Julian Bleach. It is likely to feature Sontarans and Daleks in a war as well as other aliens in a final gobsmacking battle.

Davros has been located by Caan and he is helping the Dalek to create a new race of Daleks. In a shock development in the final episode, a Dalek casing opens to reveal Harriet Jones, played by Penelope Wilton, the mother of all the new Daleks.

The Daleks have enslaved 21st century London, but which London?

Rumoured to feature the Torchwood team too as well as the newly created daughter of the Doctor.

It's also possible the Master will be back in this episode, manipulating everything from behind the scenes.

Somewhere in this story, the Doctor and co travel to an alternate future with the Daleks running the world and greenhouse gases at an all time high.

This would also be story number 200 and worth a celebration in itself.

The final scenes involve the Doctor being wounded in a freak explosion which splits him into two Doctors and Sarah, Jack, Martha, Rose and Donna trying to save him.

This is believed to be a crash and burn story which wipes out almost anything that Russell T Davies has had a hand in creating in the past few years so that the new producer can start with a clean slate, so to speak

So the description of the villain (top half human, bottom half Dalek) fits the rumour that Harriet Jones will become the mother of all the new Daleks. Sounds weird but the episode reported that Episode 6 would be about the doctor's daughter before most other sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.50.171 (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No offence, but that sounds a bit fishy... There's no way they could fit all that into two episodes, and Russell T Davies specifically stated that he had no plans to bring back the Master anytime soon. Ilikefood (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's that Sylvester McCoy site? You can absolutely ignore everything it says; that site has a reputation for taking absolutely every rumour, mixed up with a good measure of its own speculation, and presenting it as confirmed fact. You literally only have to look at the page linked to there to see that the second half of the series is entirely made-up, they've got their own ideas for the specials which have no basis in reality, and if you just look at their entry for Voyage of the Damned on the series 3 page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.156.205 (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's seen the mid-series 4 trailer on the BBC Website? Now, its obvious Davros is back because why would they be hiding the top half of a normal Dalek? At least put it looks like davros is returning, because, come on, it looks that way, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carta025 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Davros is back! those pictures of him in the sun have got to be for the new series! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.241.109 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I had an argument on a talk page about this. It seems The Sun isn't reliable. But another newspaper confirmed it as did the Radio Times. As such, it's already mentioned on the Davros and The Stolen Earth articles. Digifiend (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The final air date

This page gives it as July 5. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As we would expect. Digifiend (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Updating cast

Dawkins is now confirmed for The Stolen Earth, as is Paul O'Grady, both as themselves. Should we update the article, which currently simply says Dawkins "will appear in one of them"? 90.210.193.126 (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, it says so in The Stolen Earth as well anyway. I changed it. --SoWhy ^Talk 08:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasting to be added

There are so many different sites that have broadcast various shows and were mentioned. Just because the show is from UK, it doesn't mean that everything has to be about UK. There are other people who would view this page and don't necessarily be from UK. If you looked at other TV series from other Wikipedia articles, they show their broadcasts in Australia and US. Unless you can somehow add a section to it, don't remove any comments regarding broadcasting. Willbender (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Episodes 4 - 6

should this be a three part story as episode 6 picks up from the end of episode 5, like season three episodes 11-13. {Ucebaggie (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)}

Fourth series??

Doctor Who has been going since 1963. The fourth series was a long time ago... You could call it the fourth 21st-century series, if you like, or words to that effect. Torve (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Following discussions over the years, Season is used to refer to a group of the classic episodes and Serial is used for the new series. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Manual_of_style#Terminology. Edgepedia (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Doctor Who campfire trailer

The recent deletion debate and deletion review for Doctor Who campfire trailer had a consensus to merge that article into this one. With that in mind, I am redirecting that article here. Unless the redirect is undone, the last full edit is 20:29, 17 October 2009. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The redirect should only be undone if there is a consensus to do so here. Bear in mind that the discussion here should be enough to outweigh the previous recent discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have undone this edit to restore text that is needed as long as the trailer is a redirect. Undo my edit or otherwise restore the text if and when we decide that the full trailer should have an article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors who favor de-merging may consider temporarily restoring the article to the most recent pre-redirect version and adding their changes, then immediately changing it back to a redirect and putting a link here with their improvements. They may also consider an "unofficial/ignore all rules because it's a good thing" approach of undoing the redirect, putting a template at the top of the article saying it is in the process of a merge AND a rescue/improvement drive as part of a de-merge discussion, with a goal of coming to a decision by *pick a date, say, a week or two from now*, with the idea that if you can't improve the article enough to get a consensus to de-merge by then, the redirect should stand. This is NOT an established wikipedia procedure by the way, but then again, neither is boldly de-redirecting without forming a new consensus to overturn the 2 recent discussions, as at least one editor has already attempted.

Personally, if the article can be improved enough to address the issues raised in the AFD and deletion review, I'll likely endorse de-merging. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The major reason for merging, that "it isn't notable", is emphatically wrong. There is no room for discussion, it's a matter of fact. It was notable enough that one of the project's most prolific GA writers promoted it to GA, and the sources added by Cedders bolster this notability. I could argue that the consensus to merge itself is invalid because it was founded on this faulty presumption, and thus should be demerged pending a proper consensus to merge which doesn't go by the amount of votes to merge. That, and the merging sets a very dangerous precedent towards fiction articles on Wikipedia, but that's a digression. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, as a point of order: the DRV didn't endorse the close as correct as such; it endorsed the close as a matter of process. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your point of order. However, if we are going to work as a group, we should respect the process, except when WP:IAR says otherwise.

I see your point, and the technically correct response would be to go through each notability-related comment, double-check to see if the comment is based on true or false/incomplete information, and judge accordingly. If they were mostly based on true information, then live with it until something changes, like the Queen mentions the trailer in a speech or something. If they are based on false or incomplete information, then it should have been brought up at the time. However, since it wasn't, it can be brought up now, and the those that made the comments should be invited into the discussion. I am surprised that the closing admin didn't redirect the article and protect it, as sometimes happens with AFDs that end in "merge." That may have been a subtle hint that it's "don't ask don't tell" okay to de-merge without a formal DRV providing there is some discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There was certainly no consensus for a merge, the only outcomes of a deletion debate are delete or keep. Simple as. Jeni ^(talk) 21:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't read it that way but I'll double-check. If there had not been a consensus for a merge, it should've closed as delete, keep, or no consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see this "issue" discussed. Comments repeated if necessary. Sometimes Wikipedia is confused with a paper encyclopaedia, and this belief leads to the concept of limited space. However, while Wikipedia has few limits, it's rightfully deemed necessary to have criteria for inclusion -- standards. It's important that, when nominating an article for merging/deletion, the following questions are asked: 1) where is this article going; 2) how can this article be improved or how could another article be improved by merging; and 3) is the content valuable to someone? Matthew (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary of deletion disussions

Below is a "headcount" of the deletion discussions. I did not include comments that were not accompanied by an action e.g. "delete/merge/keep" or "overturn/endorse."

AFD: proponent ok with deletion or merger. Others: 5 merge, 3 keep: 2 merge/not notable, 1 merge/no reason, 1 merge/too small of a sub-unit, 1 weak m/multiple comments. 2 keep/notable, 1 strong keep/notable.

DRV: 10 endorse, 7 overturn, various arguments but most were either there was consensus or there was not consensus.

All in all, the closing admin could've gone either way with this. I would've re-listed the AFD myself.

By the way, in reviewing this, I see my DRV endorsement was out of order, as it was not a comment on the procedure. That would leave 9 endorsements and 7 overturns.

More detailed view of AFD and DRV/hide link

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continued

Where does this leave us? I see another editor has restored the article. Given the very weak consensus to merge vs. keep and the very weak consensus to endorse the merger, I don't think anyone else will try to force the issue as long as there is active discussion. However, if the discussion dies down without enough additional evidence of notability, the same people who brought it to AFD in the first place may try again. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For the time being, I propose the original content be located on it's original location. There is no need to merge ahead of discussion. This discussion should start out with disregard for the deletion review. — Edokter • Talk • 22:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• As I stated in the Afd (and would have in the DRV had I known about it), I don't think there is any need to merge. It is atypical for a trailer to be notable enough for a standalone article, but this one has received enough coverage to satisfy notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I personally think it's notable and merging it would either result in very little merging occurring or a serious problem with undue weight of coverage for the whole season placed on this trailer. Hobit (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Christmas Special part of series?

I know that the christmas special (The Next Doctor) was filmed as part of the series, but is it really considered the same series. Most accounts refer to it as a separate special - and it will not be in the series boxset. Aren't the just filming of it in the series 4 block be fore production reasons rather than to be part of series 4. 129.215.149.96 (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me natural that The Next Doctor be part of 2009 Specials (it only airs 1 week before 2009, surely that's close enough!) All of the other placements of specials into series have been dictated by DVD box sets, so why not follow that precedent?! DBD 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

They all have 4.xx production codes, so they are part of Series 4. — Edokter • Talk • 20:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be here. The Christmas specials are always counted as part of the following series. Putting "The Next Doctor" here actually gives Series 4 two Christmas specials which can't be right. It also wasn't a part of The Complete Fourth Series DVD set, and if they consider the series complete without it then we should too. The fact that it has a Series 4 production code is irrelevant. All of the specials between Series 4 and 5 have Series 4 production codes out of necessity. We don't include the other ones on here so why this one? --DocNox (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As well as it now being include on The Complete Specials Boxset. 86.140.110.202 (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)