Talk:Doctor Who series 7/Archive 1

Archive 1

Possible source

Here, it is claimed, are some "spoilers" from series 7. Could it be used as a source, even if only saying that these are rumors? The source itself claims that the spoilers are from reliable sources, but this must be treated with suspicion. 101090ABC (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No, they don't name their sources. Ratemonth (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I was sure they did somewhere... well, ok. 101090ABC (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Filming blocks

Concerning the filming blocks, I'm not sure they can be accurately added to the article yet. First of all, DWM confirmed that the Christmas special was going to be filmed right after "Cubed" in the fourth block, but this was changed in favor of Episodes 10 and 11 (or 9?) so Moffat could finish writing it, and it's only just begun filming. Anyone have any ideas and/or sources? Glimmer721 ^talk 22:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

New titles added

I just added two titles, citing as a source the Doctor Who Magazine twitter page. 101090ABC (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

U.S./UK Schedules

Concerning the 1st episode of Season 7 there is a blank slot in the Radio Times schedules commencing at 1820 hrs (BST) on Saturday 25th August (http://www.radiotimes.com/tv/tv-listings) However I cannot find any references in the US schedules [1] (sorry can't seem to get a better URL than that). Given we expect the 1st episode Dr. Who to air on i) a Saturday, ii) in August and iii) on BBC1 (Saturday 18th on BBC1 has an Indian Jones movie) why is the US seemingly missing its Dr. Who episode? Or are the previous assumptions in error? Would it be appropriate to put this 'wild guess' of a showing time into the main article - flagged as such? I had assumed that the BBC would not start showing Dr. Who during the Paralympics in September, until I realised that another channel (Channel 4) had that consession. Skb random (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no date announced in the U.S. yet, and we historically have run DW concurrently with the UK. BBC America advertising its return as fall 2012, and in the past, has always announced the date earlier than the BBC. Under no stretch of the imagination is August 25 fall, and the American fall TV season does't begin until after Labor Day. I doubt very much that August 25 is the correct date, given both the BBC and BBC America are saying fall. August 25, at least around here, seems to have originated with fansites attempting to project the date based in part of the scheduled date for the return of Merlin, I think it was. --Drmargi (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have this post (http://drwhomadness.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/doctor-who-returns-on-september-1st.html) just after the completion of the preview at the BFI preview tonight that sets the date as 1st September. Skb random (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So it looks certain now that the Episode will not Air on the 25th August as BBC 1 is now showing Legend of the Black Pearl in the usual Saturday time slot. (http://www.radiotimes.com/tv/tv-listings)Skb random (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The date August 25th is always mention as a speculation (http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/august-airdate-for-doctor-who-series-7-33719.htm). According to Doctor Who TV, the show is not on the official schedule for neither the week of August 25th, neither the week of September 1st. (http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/series-7-airdate-update-37704.htm) 64.86.141.133 (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

UNIT

Since there seems to be discussion and debate about which New Series episode first had UNIT, would it be all right if that part not be added into the episode description, so that it would read only "features the return of UNIT". Also, I may add that the current Wikipedia article for Aliens of London says that UNIT is mentioned. 101090ABC (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

BBC HD

Why is BBC HD listed for the original broadcasts? The press releases only mention BBC and BBC America. I haven't been able to find any evidence to support that it will air on BBC HD on September 1.

62.220.160.202 (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

At the end of this trailer. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced information

Twice today I've removed unsourced episode titles from this article, added by IPs. If that happens again soon I suggest we need to ask for semi-protection. Edgepedia (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's happened a lot, ever since this page started. Glimmer721 ^talk 15:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not uncommon, I notice thw series 6 article ended up being semi-protected for 3 months. Edgepedia (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

How is it that we have Writer and Director information for random episodes throughout 2013, but that's the only information? Plus it looks rather unsourced... -PUNKMINKIS (TALK) 15:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Release dates?

On the cover/s of the next Doctor Who Magazine, it says that Doctor Who returns "Saturdays on BBC One". Doesn't that mean that "A Town Called Mercy" will come out the following Saturday from "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship", or are we just going to wait until Radio Times/BBC, etc., reveal a release date? I was going to change it but I realised that we need good confirmation first. Rhain1999 (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Generally, there's no hurry to add anything to articles. The best time to add dates and such is after they air. But the practise has been to cite reliable sources for the specific dates. DonQuixote (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay. That makes a lot of sense. Although Doctor Who Magazine is a reliable source, it doesn't really completely confirm it, so okay. :) Rhain1999 (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad source

The reference 10 indicate the air date of the first episode is September 1st. But the page it link do not mention this date. Doctor Who TV mention that the official BBC schedule for September 1st do not contains the show : http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/series-7-airdate-update-37704.htm 64.86.141.133 (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's correct. I just watched it on BBC 1. Dsalt (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Episode descriptions

This has already happened once and i can forsee it happening in the future. I added a short description for asylum of the darleks, after having watched it on bbc one. User DonQuixote who i think is american the undid it claming it to be unsourced. Yes, it didn't have a source, but after it alreadly having aired in britian i don't think a description of an episode requires one, as descriptions of episodes that have aired usually have large sections unsorced anyway. Now i don't care if its not aired in america yet, its aired in britian so i can't see why descriptions can't be added. If this matter is not sorted, i can see this happening for every single episode. So, i say once an episode has aired in britian a description of that episode can be added even if not unsourced, because, as i have already mentioned, most episode descriptions for episodes that have already aired don't have them anyway. Frogkermit (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Er...I reverted it because it was misleading. It implied that Oswin will become the new companion. That claim requires a source. I edited it to be less misleading. DonQuixote (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

yes, but there was no need to just delete it. and if oswin will not be the new companion, who will be do you expect her to start playing a new character! Frogkermit (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. DonQuixote (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to work on trimming down the detail a little bit. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You could have easily edited it to change the part that you didn't like, instead of deleting all of it.

And once the episode is aired in the UK, which is Doctor Who's original place of broadcast and where it gets made, then an episode description should be put up after each new episode. Charlr6 (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I deleted all of it because, as it was written, it implied something that wasn't verified. It was written in a way that was misleading, which meant that after reviewing the edit, I determined that this was unintentional and was just poorly written. It had nothing to do with whatever you're talking about. Please assume good faith. DonQuixote (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I did the second delete, and I did so largely because of the diabolically lazy writing, as well as the unsourced speculation. We know Jenna Coleman will play the new companion. The editor did not provide a source that Oswin is that character, and there is evidence she is not, given the end of the episode. Neither BBC1 nor BBC America's broadcast supported what was written, so the revert was in order. Frogkermit, I would encourage you to get acquanited with capital letters along with the rules for capitalization of proper nouns, and remember you are writing an online encyclopedia, not on your friends' Facebook pages. Such poor writing might be tolerable there, but under no circumstances is it here, and it's not another editor's responsibility to clean up your written mess. (And they are DALEKS, not darlecks.) --Drmargi (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay calm down it was just a few typos so i don't appriciate a personal attack. People keep saying i should assume good faith so why don't you try it for once. Frogkermit (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was written badly, but you could have still re-wrote it to Wikipedia satisfaction. And it is Daleks, it even appears in the dictionary. I suggest next time you plan to write something frogkermit you re-read it and then re-write it to Wikipedia standards. Charlr6 (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a judgment I make as an editor, as does any editor: is a contribution worth fixing, or is it not? I'm not going to bother to fix an edit that's written by an editor who can't be bothered to raise his/her writing above the level of a text message, and another editor shouldn't expect me to. That kind of writing is disrespectful of the project and of our readers. In this instance, the edit also contained speculation and unsourced statements, and wasn't salvageable on any level. Frogkermit, nothing I said was a personal attack, just honest feedback on your writing. Even now, you can't be bothered to properly capitalize your most recent comment. Nor did it have anything to do with assumption of good faith. That's more than I can say of your comments about Don Quixote, so I'd be careful of doing any finger pointing. --Drmargi (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing was said about it being badly written when I first commented, only word being 'misleading'. So how would I know whether it was badly written, but still good enough to be edited quickly to boost it up to Wikipedia standards? So don't expect me to know it was badly edited straight away. This is getting out of hand now and isn't any need to continue this discussion. Charlr6 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

My point was that we make individual judgments as editors; my judgment was that the edit wasn't acceptable in toto, and that it wasn't my responsibility to fix the writing of an editor too lazy to put a finger on the shift key and capitalize when appropriate, particularly when the content was so problematic. If you disagreed, you could have fixed it as well. --Drmargi (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I never saw it, I only heard of it on here, and it sounded like it was taken out completely because of one simple thing. I already told you, when I first commented, no one had said how badly written it was. Charlr6 (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Originally, I interpreted it as being unsourced...that's why I reverted. Then I had to figure out that it was misleading as a result of being poorly written, so I didn't know that it was badly edited straight away either. That's the danger of something being poorly written. Again, please assume good faith. DonQuixote (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologise, the reason why I originally thought it was deleted was because that editor had not seen the episode yet, and just wanted to get this issue sorted incase that happened every week. You're right, I should have not have stated that Jenna Colemnan will play the same character, and that we cannot assume that. I also should have re-read what I had written and check for typos, I was just anixious to get it posted. However, I felt that Drmargi's comments were quite hurtful as this is not the standard of my usual edits, as I said I was just anxious to get it posted so did not think to check for typos, and I am not a lazy editor, although accusing you of a personal attack was going a bit far. Can we just move on from this now. Frogkermit (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to move on. And some of Drmargis comments weren't really necessary and could be consider mild bullying. But lets all move on. Charlr6 (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. People making bad edits claiming those correcting their bad edits are bullying them is just silly. 75.26.17.15 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never claimed that it was bullying. Frogkermit (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Frogkermit was said to have 'lazy writing' which is a mild insult. It wouldn't be if it was said as 'bad writing'. Charlr6 (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Frogkermit, I accept this isn't the usual standard of your writing if you say so, but all I can go by is what's in front of me, and what I saw was very poor. It takes a millisecond to hit the shift key, and a competent editor should know use of proper English is expected here; how else would you describe someone who can do this but fails to? Look at your opening post above and ask yourself what impression of your writing it leaves. I stand by my assessment of what I saw, especially given at least one editor seemed to think that it was my job to clean it up if I didn't like it, which is absolute nonsense. And remember, all of this is over and above the WP:RS and WP:OR issues Don Quixote was dealing with, which were dismissed out of hand because he was perceived as an American who must not have seen the episode. --Drmargi (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said that I expected anyone else to clear it up. If you were not happy with the quality of writing then you could have mentioned it here and I would have corrected all the grammar mistakes. And, as for my first comment on the talk page, it is not the actual encyclopedic article so there is no need to fuss over small grammar mistakes. I have seen many an editor on many different articles not use correct grammar on talk pages, and nobody else seems bothered by it. It is only a talk page after all. I would also never go as far to accuse any editor of being lazy, as it is unknown what circumstances they were under, and, as I said previously, I was anxious to post it so did not think to check for grammar mistakes, which I have already apologised for. Rather than being lazy, I was being enthusiastic, which, as I am sure you are aware, is the opposite. Frogkermit (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a nice community where we all help each other. We are editors where we all will edit other peoples work. And I never expected you to edit and correct everything that Frogkermit wrote, even though like it was badly written. And in my first few comments it wasn't stated how bad the article was, it only sounded like there were a few mistakes that anyone, and even me would have just quickly edited it no problem. This discussion is long over and getting pointless now. Charlr6 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Let this be an end to it now. Frogkermit (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

About the reviews section...

Should we wait until cumulative reviews commenting on the series as a whole are released? After all that's what the page is for - not each individual episode. It would probably turn out something like the reception section on series 5 or 6 when done. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Series seven second half

We have the directors and writers listed in the table with no sources. Do we have sources for all of them, and are we sure about the order? Edgepedia (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we're sure. Doctor Who Magazine confirmed them about a month ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.252.88 (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove tags without correcting the problem. And see below, it needs checking. Edgepedia (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please check the entries and cite the magazine? There's been a change only today. Edgepedia (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

All the writers and directors are sourced at the top of the table by the SFX News Accumulator which has had them for a while. I updated the link. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I found the source in the article, checked the list with the table and cited it as I did it. This helps when there are changes like there were yesterday. I removed an episode title as this has not been confirmed. Edgepedia (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Christmas Special

Someone undid my edit where i stated that the christmas special would be an adaptation of the snowman, claming doctor who tv to be an unreliable source. But, seen as doctor who tv has previously reported many things accuratley, and it has not been proved that it is not based on a snowman, could we not just keep it as it is. there is evidence pounting towards it being based on the snowman, with snowmen seen on set, and as moffat usually loosely adapts christmas stories, i think that we could just keep it with my edit unless it is proved otherwise Frogkermit (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The policy is WP:BRD, if something is reverted, please discuss it's addition to the page. The source is based on a set report and usually these are classified as not reliable. Edgepedia (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(Comment removed)

It's better an editor "looks like an idiot" than a wikipedia article itself. Also see philosophic burden of proof#Holder of the burden and keep in mind wp:original research. DonQuixote (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who TV does not state their sources (except for the possible "set report", but that has already been discussed). I myself suggested DWTV as a possible source, but the thought was denied. See the above discussion titled "Possible source". 101090ABC (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If DWTV had any news with a real source, that'd be fine. Neither page on their site has that. And their earlier alleged "Lots of Series 7 Spoilers" turned out to have wrong information, claiming that Episode 5 would be titled “The Angels Wept”. They may occasionally get things right, but not always, and anyway they don't offer real explanations of how they come by their information. Ratemonth (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, they don't state their sources. 101090ABC (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

On a slightly different topic, if the Christmas episode is part of the 13-episode season this year, is it accurate to call it a "special"? Isn't a special episode one that airs outside a season? Mezigue (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends on how you look at it. Apparently there will be a break of a couple of months between ep. 5 and Christmas and then another break between Christmas and the next episode. Does that mean the Christmas episode is part of the season or does it mean it's outside the season? 101090ABC (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the first thread on this page (episode numbering), you'll see that because it does introduce a new companion, who will be sticking around for a while, it is part of the season. However, it has always been referred to as the "christmas special", mainly because, as stated above, there is a short break before and after the episode airs. -Punkminkis (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, it will probably be longer than the average episode (60 minutes). Glimmer721 ^talk 00:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

But some of the other episodes are 50 minutes, so 60 isn't that much longer. 101090ABC (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Average episode, 60 minutes including commercials. Special, most likely, 60 minutes NOT including commercials, totaling over 60 minutes with commercials. -PUNKMINKIS (TALK) 14:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(←)

Well, anyway, 10 mins is quite nothing. 101090ABC (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely we call it a Christmas special because the BBC is calling it a Christmas special — "expect six episodes this year including a Christmas Special", "Richard E Grant and Tom Ward to Star in the Christmas Special" as well as news and rumour specialists such as The Mirror, The Telegraph, BBC News and The Independent. Looking at the above there appears to be no agreement what a "Christmas Special" is. Just my speculation, but I think that all the pre-Christmas publicty will refer it as a "Christmas Special" and in February we will have a 2012 Christmas Special DVD. Edgepedia (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, it can be a Christmas Special that's also an episode of the 7th series. The two aren't mutually exclusive. DonQuixote (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So it was called the snowmen then after all Frogkermit (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

What's up?

I understand that information for the titles must come from a reliable source, and that is why BBC should be preferred (like it is now). However, I strongly oppose to a "BBC only" rule, if a reliable source can be found elsewhere. I ran into this problem today when a small difference of opinions occurred. I posted an edit stating the name for Neil Gaiman's episode, giving as a source an interview with Gaiman himself. This was taken down because my source wasn't the BBC but rather an interview with Gaiman on another website. Although Den of Geek, the website I posted as the source (mind you, they were not the origin of the interview) isn't a reliable source "per se", surely an interview with the writer of an episode is? 101090ABC (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's be accurate; it was posted on a fan website, and added over a hidden note that explicitly states the episode titles must be sourced to the BBC, per long-standing consensus. I would suggest you put in a link to the interview so that other editors can read it and evaluate its reliability. --Drmargi (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I took away the hidden note was because I deemed an interview (or news of one) as as reliable a source as the BBC, therefore making the notice as not of any use anymore. Anyhow, this is the news article I put as the source, and this is the original interview that I at first tried to cite as source but that for some reason didn't work (check the logs, the edit can be found there). 101090ABC (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That appears to be a reliable source that Neil Gaiman believed at the time of the interview that the episode was called "The Last Cyberman". This working title as been known for some time, since a script was reported found in a taxi. We have seen episode names change often before broadcast, so I question if this interview can be considered a reliable source for the final episode title? Edgepedia (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Like with Phantom of the Hex, can we have a reliable source disputing what Gaiman says in the themusic.com.au article? Gaiman should be considered a reliable source. Have we heard a reliable source saying the title has changed or may change? No such source has been produced. Ratemonth (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking for a reliable source for the broadcast title for the episode, not a working title. Edgepedia (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyyright Violations

We have had four copy-and-paste 'summaries' for "The Bells of St. John" today. If this continues we may need to semi-protect the article. Edgepedia (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologise. Two of those edits were me. I'm new to editing and I've now learned the rules regarding copying and pasting information directly from sources.JIGoodier1992 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Phantom of the Hex

This title is sourced to bbcamerica, but was been removed at List of Doctor Who serials with the edit summary "Phantom of the Hex is NOT Steven Moffat's episode, it is merely a working title for Neil Cross' second story, as made clear by Jesdica). As this a similar sourcing issue to the "The Last Cyberman" question above, I suggest we centralise discussion here. Edgepedia (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If anyone can find a reliable source saying Phantom of the Hex is not going to be the next episode, then they should produce that source. They should also offer a coherent explanation why bbcamerica is not a reliable source. It is part of the BBC. If it turns out they have this wrong then I won't use them as a reliable source in the future. But until someone can offer a reliable source disproving anything in that bbcamerica article they should quit trying to delete the episode title or claiming it's an unreliable source. I will delete the unreliable source tag recently put by it. Ratemonth (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

As you have probably found out by now, bbcamerica is in fact an unreliable source as the next episode is The Bells of Saint John as confirmed earlier today. Therefore, you should stop using the bbcamerica anglophenia page, but I have no problem with an article put out by bbcamerica itself. As I tried to explain a couple months ago, the anglophenia page is a rumors website, just like doctorwhotv.co.uk, which this time was correct when bbcamerica was not. Also, (now talking to Edgepedia), I am so glad that someone else agrees with me about that, as I tried to do the exact same thing, and was rebuked similarly to you. I have also posted on the Doctor Who Serials today saying pretty much the same thing, but I thought I might post it here too. Zoopedia P.S. (How do you sign a comment?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoopedia (talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Too bad it's an unreliable source. Ratemonth (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Just like bbcamerica anglophenia blog. Zoopedia (Can you please tell me how to sign it?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoopedia (talk • contribs) 03:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Type ~~~~ (see just below the edit box and right above the edit summary). DonQuixote (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to this editing shindig, but I'd very much like to point out that Jessica Raine is not in "The Bells of Saint John" because she is appearing in a Neil Cross written episode. The article on bbcamerica anglophenia was wrong. However, this is the first incorrect article they've ever written, to my knowledge. It was simply the article writer getting his information wrong. JIGoodier1992 —Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hold your horses! Let's take a step back; I think we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and are too trusting of Zoopedia's inaccurate characterization of what the Anglophenia blog is. It is not at all comparable to DoctorWhoTV, which is a fansite dealing in rumors and secondary information. Anglophenia is a feature on the official BBC America site, and is their self-described "British Culture" blog. It is not a "rumors website" -- that statement simply demonstrates one editor's lack of understanding of the blog's connection to the BBC America website, and consequently the BBC. The piece from Anglophenia that sourced Phantom of the Hex as the first new episode was principally a profile piece in Jessica Raine. We need to remember that errors get made, changes occur, writers are misinformed, and this circumstance far from makes the BBC American site or Anglophenia in particular unreliable. If we held every source to the one-error standard, we couldn't use 90% of the newspapers and magazines, and probably a comparable percentage of reputable websites we currently trust implicitly. Anglophenia has accurately sourced broadcast dates for a good many British programs in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. --Drmargi (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that's what I was saying. On this one occasion, a usually reliable source of information was wrong. But only on this one occasion. It's absolutely a reliable source. JIGoodier1992

That's true, you did. But others didn't and my comments were directed at the whole discussion (thus the outdent.) --Drmargi (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ep8: The Rings of Akhaten?

Is this reliable enough to put ep8's title in the table? As opposed to Phantoms of the Hex (I thought that was meant to be Gatiss' second episode anyway??), cultbox are reporting it as the official title rather than a rumour here. http://www.cultbox.co.uk/news/headlines/6330-luther-writer-teases-his-doctor-who-episodes U-Mos (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Following the links, the only other mention of that title is on their own rumours page, which links to a CV. DonQuixote (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the source is reliable enough to put the title on the page. Numerous rumour sites have reported that "The Rings of Akhaten" is the title for the episode, though they all link back to the CV. JIGoodier1992 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

As such, it could possibly be a working title. Some times titles are changed close to the BBC's announcement of them; "The Doctor's Wife" being an example. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Because of the recent spate of unsourced additions by IPs, I've requested semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Edgepedia (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Last Cyberman is now: Nightmare in Silver

DWM Official Twitter. 101090ABC (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Episode Numbering

surely, as usual practice, the christmas special will be episode 0 or X, and the first episode after christmas will be episode 6, and not episode 7. this would mean that, for example, episode 10, as written by mark gatiss, will actually be an episode earlier that listed here, and the season finale, as written by steven moffat, will actually be episode 13 and not 14. many other websites list the episodes like this, such as doctor who tv ( http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/moffats-series-7-update-36527.htm ), so why is wikipedia different? Frogkermit (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, we have to wait in see. There are also sources which call the Christmas special Episode 6. The difference is that the Christmas Special is in the middle rather than the end of the series, and is not necessarily "extra" because it introduces a new companion and will no doubt be a major part of the series. I can see the DVDs and the BBC website naming it the sixth episode, rather than it being separate. Glimmer721 ^talk 16:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

let's look back and see what the last 2 or 3 seasons have done. This is not the first year Doctor Who has been split into two part seasons.

Also, Who ever wrote the current synopsis seems to not have really watched the episode. I'm not going to edit it because if it gets reverted, I'll be beyond pissed off, so I'll let someone else do it. 72.77.197.173 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it is the first time there has been a Christmas special in between two halves of a series. Anyway, which synopsis are you referring to? I wrote the ones for series 1, 2, 5, and 6, but these have been filled in as the episodes have aired and I've not really read them. They do need to be cut down, though. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I was apperantly thinking of something else earlier. From looking at post season 4 specials, and realizing (after being told) that this is the first time Christmas special is in the middle of the season (I was thinking this had happened the last two years as well) I would say it is rightfully at 7.6, at least for the production codes, and this is what *I* feel should be gone by. - As far as the Synopsis, I was refering just to The Snowmen's. " to turn humanity into an army of ice people." Seems false to me as the idea was not to turn humans into ice people, but to make ice duplicates. Maybe I'm just "smoking crack" or w/e though. Either way, thank You for the clearification Glimmer721. ~AeSix 72.77.197.173 (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right. They wanted to create an army of unmeltable ice people. It's been corrected. DonQuixote (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that this page lists episode numbers as though the mid-series Christmas Special was a part of the episodes (The Bells of Saint John being episode 7), but the individual episode pages of all the aired second-half episodes do not treat the Christmas Special as an episode (direct quote from its page: ""The Bells of Saint John" is the sixth episode of the seventh series..."). I'm not entirely sure which is correct (though I would lean towards either not counting any Christmas Special, or counting all of them (which definitely can't be the right move), not treating this one as any different, but in any case, I think it looks especially bad when one place on Wikipedia uses one ordering system and another place (of which, there are links back and forth) uses a different system. One for all, I say! --Jermdeeks (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Release of the whole season

Different parts of the season have been released onto DVD and bluray, but do we know anything about when the whole season will be released? I tried finding a pre-order on amazon(.co.uk), but I couldn't find anything. Hakinu (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Historically, Doctor Who series are released in parts, with box sets of the entire series being released a few months after the final airing, around the time the soundtracks are also released. This date is currently unknown in the UK, and it may be that it waits until the 50th anniversary special.  drewmunn  talk  14:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Production code column

There are a couple of production codes listed on the article, but these are completely incorrect. The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe had the production code "X11" not "7X". Additionally, production codes were scrapped after that episode was produced, so episode 1 was definitely not "7.1". You will never find any official source confirming this as the code, I am aware of one encyclopedia that used this as a code, but as somebody connected to the production team (Edward Russell I believe) confirmed on Twitter, this was purely for the sake of consistency across the episodes, indeed they also got all the codes for the 2010 and 2011 series wrong just to avoid duplication of the RTD era codes. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Production Codes

Have the production codes been confirmed by DWM? Often the order of episodes changes — and some sources say that it has — so I was curious. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Production coding was scrapped according to Edward Russell on Twitter after The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No spoilers please!

I understand some people have gotten advance copies of the series finale. Please don't post any spoilers! 69.125.134.86 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I know this is some time ago, but I thought I'd follow up with a comment: we don't censor Wikipedia. However, we also don't accept plot synopses (other than sourced 'preview'-style ones common with films or from TV guides) prior to the first general release of the episode. It's unclear where a leak would feature, but in my opinion, the content is not citable with a leak.  drewmunn  talk  14:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Saying that Gillian and Darvill departed the series in the fifth episode in the beginning paragraph is unneccessary, because anyone who watches the show will figure out what that means! For example, this editor came here to glance at the titles of the episodes. If readers want to know all the character deaths, they can read the plot synopses, which this editor, and probably most people, is not stupid enough to do before watching the actual episode. (I'd ask if the page really has to say that this is the final season to feature Smith, Darvill and Gillian, but I suppose the answer is yes.)

Please learn how to sign your posts on talk pages. And create your own section if you have an issue with the article. To the topic at hand, all I see from you is speculation. Not all readers are watchers of the show. We give details and actual facts; if they happened and are sourced, they're included. Just because one editor things it "unnecessary", doesn't mean it isn't. Don't assume that readers are here for only one part - they're more than likely here for the entire article. Alex|The|Whovian 14:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)