Talk:Doctor Who series 9/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"And" vs. "&" (again)

Normally, I would see the point in taking information verbatim from a source, but in this case, the difference in meaning is absolutely none. It seems some people are being too enthusiastic about enforcing the letter of the rules/guidelines. There's no reason not to use the same consistent format in each series article. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between the two, as per the discussion I linked to in the revert. Alex|The|Whovian 22:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I've already seen that discussion, and you haven't mentioned any difference in meaning. I agree that in general sticking to what sources say is a good rule of thumb, but it does not apply here, as they are equivalent, therefore consistency actually improves the article. But I'm not going to continue arguing over this if you (and some other people) are not willing to understand. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I had linked to the wrong discussion, but I can't seem the find the original. In a nutshell, "and" means that they worked together jointly on the episode, whereas "&" signifies that the latter writer only contributed to the episode in a lesser manner than the former (and hence main) writer. Alex|The|Whovian 01:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: That's interesting, I've never heard of that before. Sorry about that then. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency

I've read the above discussions, and I know it's all a bit controversial, but I wanted to note an inconsistency in the article as it stands. It currently says "For the first time since the programme returned in 2005, the majority of the episodes are grouped into multi-part stories; all episodes from this series bar one are grouped into four two-parters and one three-parter. "Sleep No More" is the only stand-alone story of the series." (my bold).

There are two current inconsistencies:

(1) Last Christmas is listed in the table as part of series 9 and stand-alone. A non-DW-knowledgeable reader would not understand why it wasn't included in the paragraph... This also applies to "The series opens with a two-parter for the first time since the sixth series in 2011" since clearly the series began with "Last Christmas" according to the table!

(2) "The Girl Who Lived" and "The Woman Who Died" are also currently listed as stand-alone (per above discussions... but I just wanted to point out the paragraph is inconsistent).

Personally, I would cut that opening paragraph just to read "For the first time since the programme returned in 2005, the majority of the episodes are grouped into multi-part stories." and leave it for the reader to look at the table to see what groupings there are. Just a suggestion. Stephenb (Talk) 08:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Concerning "Last Christmas", Christmas specials are always included as the first row of the episode table as an introductory to the series, but not the first episode (also see past series' tables, previous discussions of this and the Home Media Release article for the program), and the episode is listed as Episode "–" instead of Episode 1. "The Girl Who Lived" and "The Woman Who Died" should be listed as one story until a consensus is reached for the above discussion. Alex|The|Whovian 08:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Last Christmas"... Yes, I know that is the convention, but the article/paragraph and table appear inconsistent in that respect: nothing in the article tells someone who is not familiar with this series that LC is not considered part of the series since the table says it is, because it is in the table! The article needs to explain somewhere that although the series starts with TMA, LC is - what? - considered part of it by convention? Whose convention? The first mention of LC is in the table, which makes no sense unless the reason for its inclusion is covered beforehand. (This might be a problem with other series articles, too, I haven't checked.)

Thank for making the other part consistent though - I didn't track through the history enough to find the edit that broke it :) Stephenb (Talk) 08:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

No problems. And it's definitely covered already by the fact that it's not listed as Episode 1 of the series (i.e. the second column). The article List of Doctor Who home video releases has notes for each Christmas specials that state "The Christmas specials are considered introduction to the series, without actually being part of it" - perhaps this is needed for the series articles as well. Alex|The|Whovian 09:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"The Girl Who Died" / "The Woman Who Lived" - Two-Parter?

In an advance review of "The Girl Who Died", it is stated that there is a "To Be Continued..."[1], which surely confirms that the episodes are a two-parter. Also another advance review states that there is a cliffhanger[2]. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We got you the first time. There's no need to remove this and then instantly reinstate it. Wait until the episodes have aired to clear the previous consensus. Alex|The|Whovian 15:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Why do we need to wait for the episodes to air when we already know that there is a "To Be Continued..." and a cliffhanger? The episodes will not reveal anything else. Also, I deleted and reinstated it because I hadn't had a response for over 19 hours. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you didn't get a reply, that's not the point of posting. And because those don't necessarily specify a two-parter, especially given that there's already been consensus that they're separate episodes. Alex|The|Whovian 15:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the previous discussion it was stated that if there is a "To Be Continued..." it is a two-parter, but now that is not the case? 5.65.166.226 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no rush. Most often, the best time to write about an episode (or two) is after it airs. DonQuixote (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

But now we know it is a two-parter, continuing to list them as standalones is incorrect. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We now know that the episodes are indeed a two-parter and therefore they should be listed as such. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are you repeating yourself? Alex|The|Whovian 16:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Because no one is acknowledging that they should be listed as a two-parter. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no rush for it, honestly. Repeating yourself will only make editors more annoyed, given that unlike yourself apparently, we don't have all day to spend on Wikipedia. Wait until the episodes air. Alex|The|Whovian 16:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said previously, we do not need to wait for the episodes as we already know that there is a "To Be Continued..." and a cliffhanger. Waiting for the episodes means leaving incorrect information as it is, so this edit needs to happen. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There was a "To Be Continued" message. BlueBlue11 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, at the end of the previous discussion is was stated that we should wait for "The Girl Who Died" to air and if there was a "To Be Continued..." it will be listed as a two-parter. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Just watched the episode, it did indeed end with a big "To Be Continued..." and ominous drum beat, so yeah. Changing the story numbers okay now? KoopaCooper (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The story number in the Series Overview on the List of Serials page needs to be changed from 8 to 7. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Also this page should now read "ten of the twelve episodes form two-parters, while the remaining two are standalones", although that then wouldn't agree with the citation at the end of the sentence. KoopaCooper (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that part should be removed anyway. It's kind of unnecessary. BlueBlue11 (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As you can edit semi-protected pages, on the List of Serials page could you change the Series 9 stories number in the Series Overview box from 8 to 7. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

3 episodes are single parters, could this be The Girl Who Died, The Woman Who Lived and Sleep No More. Could this mean Face The Raven and the following 2 are a 3-parter? 86.24.76.193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Where's your source for this? Alex|The|Whovian 00:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" are classed as a 2-parter, the first one finished with a great big "To Be Continued" message onscreen. It doesn't get much more obvious than that really does it? lol KoopaCooper (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The "To Be Continued" is meaningless. A number of episodes have ended with "To Be Continued" that weren't the first part of a two-parter. "The Almost People" and "The Name of the Doctor" are two example. If that's the only justification for considering this a two-parter, that's pretty flimsy.

If you're going by 'To Be Continued', you know literally nothing about DoctorWho. If that's what constitutes a story, all of the 60s would be one huge story. ~ Microbat98 (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ratings

http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-series-9-2015-uk-ratings-accumulator-76154.htm

L+7 ratings added - should this be updated?

Badgerdog2 (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No, as per every other series article of the programme. Alex|The|Whovian 23:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Husbands of River Song

"The Husbands of River Song" is included in the Series 9 DVD[3] so it should be listed under Series 9 rather than separately. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That does not necessarily make it part of series 9. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does, Christmas specials are grouped with the series they are released on DVD with. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. As per the Home media release page for Doctor Who, they are listed as introductory to a series, rather than part of it. Alex|The|Whovian 23:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Please respond further at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Edit Request: The Husbands of River Song. Alex|The|Whovian 12:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Final 3 episodes

From this source:

"Moffat, predictably, declined to comment on that possibility but did reveal that this Saturday’s show, the 10th of the season, would kick off a climactic trilogy of interconnected adventures for Peter Capaldi’s Doctor.

“[The season] ends with three episodes, all of which cliffhanger into each other in a quite major way,” says the executive producer. “They’re very linked, but it won’t feel like a three-part story. In a traditional Doctor Who way, it builds to a huge climax in episode 12.

Should "Face the Raven" / "Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent" be considered the same story number, just as "Utopia" / "The Sound of Drums" / "Last of the Time Lords" were in Series 3? Alex|The|Whovian 00:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I would. The source is valid, and the head writer labels it a trilogy. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Great. I've updated most (if not all) of the articles, episode numbers, and occurrences where the links are paired into their respective stories. Alex|The|Whovian 02:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Was kind of suspecting that for a while to be honest, after the Ashildr episodes turned out to be a two parter in the end. BlueBlue11 (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. However, i think proper confirmation would be when AFTER Face the Raven has aired, there is a To Be Continued sign, therefore confirming it is a three parter. Some has edited the changes made on Face the Raven, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent, making HS and HB a two-parter and FTR separate... Badgerdog2 (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Theoosmond: Please read the discussion here before reverting the edits. The proof that the three episodes are a three-parter is in the first comment of this discussion. Alex|The|Whovian 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The source does not confirm that the episodes are a three-parter, at no point are they explicitly referred to as a three-parter, you are just inferring that they are a three-parter, there has been no confirmation. "Face the Raven" has been confirmed on multiple occasions to be a standalone, it has also been confirmed that it will have a lead in to the finale, not that it will be part of it. "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" have been confirmed on multiple occasions to be a two-parter. The source states that the episodes "cliffhanger into each other", but a cliffhanger doesn't make it a multi-parter, if that was the case then "The Rebel Flesh" / "The Almost People" and "A Good Man Goes to War" would be considered a three-parter, and "Closing Time" and "The Wedding of River Song" would be considered a two-parter. As well as this, the title has no connection to the following two, the director is different, the writer is different, the guest cast is different, the plot of the episode is different, and the synopsis of "Face the Raven" and "Heaven Sent" do not do not relate to each other. There is no explicit evidence that the episodes are a three-parter, where as there is explicit evidence that they are not. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

A trilogy is a three-part story, and a three-part story is a trilogy, and the three stories are explicitly to be a trilogy stated in the source above. Hence: three-part story. Obviously information changes when new sources and new information come to light, just like the above. If you have sources stating that "The Rebel Flesh" / "The Almost People" / "A Good Man Goes to War" is a three-part story, and "Closing Time" / "The Wedding of River Song" is a two part story, then by all means, provide reliable sources. Examples of reliable sources are quotes directly from the head writer of the series - for example, the one we're talking about right now. The titles and synopsis having no connection is simply original research, and your point about different directors/writers goes right out of the window when I point you to "The Girl Who Died" / "The Woman Who Lived". Alex|The|Whovian 21:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

A trilogy is a group of three related plays, films, episodes etc., a three-parter is three directly linked plays, films, episodes etc. with some form of plot/story continuation, they are not the same thing. A series of three films is a trilogy even if there is no connection or link other than the main characters. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

In the case of Doctor Who, they are the same thing. The source above explicitly states the three stories are a "climactic trilogy of interconnected adventures", "all of which cliffhanger into each other" and "[t]hey’re very linked". That's a three parter. There's nothing stating otherwise. Alex|The|Whovian 11:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Why should we not wait until the broadcast of "Face The Raven" and see if it says "To Be Continued"?Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 11:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wait until it airs to revert if necessary. Which won't be and is not necessary, given the source above. Alex|The|Whovian 11:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, but if it is the case that FTR-HB is a three parter, shouldn't all mentions of it being a three parter be sourced on that relevant pages. That's the only reason I reverted your edits, there was no sign of a source, not because I thought it wasn't true or anything.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 11:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Doctor Who TV there is a "To Be Continued", we also know that there is a cliffhanger, but that does not make it three-parter, if that was the case then "The Rebel Flesh" / "The Almost People" and "A Good Man Goes to War" would be considered a three-parter as there is a cliffhanger and a "To Be Continued" at the end of "The Almost People". The only evidence for "Face the Raven" and "Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent" being a three-parter is considering a trilogy and a three-parter to be the same thing, which is inferring. It seems as though it is just a cliffhanger and a "To Be Continued" that connects it to the finale which does not constitute a three-parter, especially when the episode has frequently been referred to as a standalone. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Steven Moffat has referred to "Face the Raven" as "the gateway to the finale"[4], although Digital Spy say it's a three-part finale, Steven Moffat doesn't say that, he says "it's sort of a three-parter". 5.65.166.226 (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that "Face the Raven" is filling the same role as "Utopia" which is also considered the first of a three part finale. But time will tell whether it's just a case of how "The Rebel Flesh"/"The Almost People" led into "A Good Man Goes to War", or something greater. BlueBlue11 (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

But there has been no confirmation of anything more than a lead-in to the finale. This is different to argument with "The Girl Who Died" / "The Woman Who Lived" as their status was always blurred, where as "Face the Raven" has always been referred to as a standalone and "Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent" have always been referred to as a two-parter. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Another source: 'Face the Raven' - from new writer Sarah Dollard - was originally intended for an earlier slot in the series, but will now serve as the first chapter in "a three-part finale". Alex|The|Whovian 15:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That is the same source I provided, I explained that the article stated that. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason why "Face the Raven" was originally referred to as a standalone episode was probably to keep its status as the first part of the finale a secret. BlueBlue11 (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

So it is, didn't notice at the time. Alex|The|Whovian 20:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a three parter to me and it had a To Be Continued message as well. BlueBlue11 (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That's what dictated that "The Girl Who Died" / "The Woman Who Lived" was a two-parter. I guess this is settled, then - it's a three-parter. Alex|The|Whovian 21:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not that simple, "The Almost People" had a "To Be Continued" but that doesn't make "The Rebel Flesh" / "The Almost People" and "A Good Man Goes to War" three-parter. As I stated previously this is not the same as with "The Girl Who Died" / "The Woman Who Lived" as their status was always blurred. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Different cases. This one being that it's not blurred, given the specific quotes of it being a three-parter, as per this entire discussion. Alex|The|Whovian 21:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Also as I said before "Face the Raven" seems to fit the same role as "Utopia" did for its series, and if I recall the only direct link between "The Almost People" and "A Good Man Goes to War" was the last few minutes and the cliffhanger. BlueBlue11 (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to more fit the same role as "Turn Left", judging by the Next Time trailer, it is no where near as connected to "Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent" as "Utopia" was to "The Sound of Drums" / "Last of the Time Lords". 5.65.166.226 (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It said at the end of Face the Raven "To Be Continued". Therfore, leave it as it is.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 21:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I said before, it is not that simple, "To Be Continued" is not enough to make episodes a multi-parter, "The Rebel Flesh" / "The Almost People" and "A Good Man Goes to War" are not considered as a three-parter, so there is no reason for these episodes to be. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And how do you know that it is "no where near as connected to "Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent" as "Utopia" was to "The Sound of Drums" / "Last of the Time Lords"? We already know that "Face the Raven" is connected to the next two episodes. And we have confirmation from Moffat and other sources that is a three part story (yes they said it's not a conventional three part story but that's also the same way The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived were described). If, when the next two episodes air, it seems as if "Face the Raven" isn't that connected at all then we'll change it. But for now, everything seems to be pointing towards it being a three parter. BlueBlue11 (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

They didn't say it is any kind of three-part story. Steven Moffat has specifically referred to it as "the gateway to the finale" not part of it. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? "but will now serve as the first chapter in "a three-part finale" isn't stating it's a three-part story? It literally says "three-part". Alex|The|Whovian 22:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The official Doctor Who website states "Rachel Talalay returns to direct Series 9's two-part finale" in a gallery for "Heaven Sent" released today.[5] This is sufficient evidence that the episodes are not a three-parter. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Barely sufficient evidence. Alex|The|Whovian 16:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The finale being explicitly called a two-parter on the official Doctor Who website is more than sufficient evidence. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Merely a posting of promotional pictures with one caption doesn't outrule an interview with the showrunner, and more sources supporting the three-part finale. Alex|The|Whovian 00:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This source also explicitly states "two-part finale"[6]. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Tom Spilsbury from DWM confirmed to me on Gallifrey Base that they intend to treat them as three seperate-but-related stories (as, say, they do with the Black Guardian trilogy), which seems about right. The 'to be continued' issue seems irrelevant to me - A Good Man Goes to War had one but is now generally considered seperate to Let's Kill Hitler. Besides, Heaven Sent did not come with a TBC so by that standard Face the Raven and Heaven Sent are one story and Hell Bent another.90.217.159.117 (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That would consist of original research and not be valid within the article. Alex|The|Whovian 23:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That Moffat quote also doesn't confirm that this is a three-parter. All he says is that the three episodes are linked, but it doesn't feel like a three parter. That could mean it is a three-parter that doesn't feel like one, or it could mean it isn't a three-parter that includes linked elements. Since Tom Spilsbury has actually been consulting with Moffat about how he classifies season 9 episodes as stories, I imagine we will get some more definitive information after the series is over.

Having to copy-paste one of my above posts here... "but will now serve as the first chapter in "a three-part finale" isn't stating it's a three-part story? It literally says "three-part". And some random person who claims to have "consulted" with Moffat, with no source attached, is an unreliable source and cannot be used within the scope of Wikipedia. Alex|The|Whovian 23:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Tom Spilsbury is the editor of Doctor Who Magazine and does indeed consult with Moffat (who writes a column for the mag). They reviewed The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived as seperate stories and Spilsbury has said they intend to do the same with Face The Raven, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent. They're also listing them seperately in the post-season poll. I don't expect you to take my word for any of this, but once the issues in question hit newsstands we can presumably enter them as evidence? Also, that Digital Spy article is hardly conclusive proof of anything. It says the story is a 3-parter but in the next breath quotes Moffat as saying that the three episodes are "linked" but "don't feel like a three-parter". Again, it's analagous to, say, Mawdryn Undead, Terminus and Enlightenment; a trilogy of linked stories, but each one can be viewed seperately.2.122.9.210 (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

What they decide to list the stories as in their polls is not reminiscent of what the stories are. And "don't feel like a three-parter" does not equal "is not a three-parter". There is above consensus to list them as a three-parter. (I also have no idea what Mawdryn Undead, Terminus and Enlightenment are.) Alex|The|Whovian 02:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus. Your only source for calling it a 3-parter is a DS article you've dragged up in which the writer of two of the episodes expresses the view that they "Don't feel like a three-parter". On the basis of that you've changed the article without getting even close to a consensus. Mawdryn Undead, Terminus and Enlightenment are three 80s Who stories; throughout them there's a storyline in which a being called the Black Guardian plots with a companion called Turlough to murder the Doctor. The storyline runs through all three stories but they're usually regarded as a trilogy of seperate stories rather than one long one.2.122.9.210 (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I also feel some of the arguments here start from a false premise. The 'To Be Continued' message is irrelevant since there are several examples of stories including one that aren't actually part of the same story as the following episode (The Rebel Flesh/The Almost People, The Name of the Doctor). There are also stories that cliffhanger into the next story without being part of it - in the first season of Doctor Who in 1963/64 almost EVERY story ends with a cliffhanger which leads into the next one! So neither the 'TBC' or the cliffhanger are conclusive. As for the argument about a 'trilogy' and a 'three-parter', they're clearly different things. The first three Star Wars films are a 'trilogy' but they aren't all one film, are they? The conclusive thing in my mind is that these three episodes each tell a different story (the Doctor and Clara investigate who framed Rigsy on Trap Street, the Doctor has to escape the confession dial, the Doctor returns to Gallifrey to deal with the hybrid and find out who kidnapped him). There's certainly a thread running between them but that doesn't make them one story. Of course that's only my opinion but DWM are following the same line of thinking and for me in the absence of the BBC or Moffat making a definitive statement that represents sufficiently notable evidence to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. Note that everything I've said goes for The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived, too.2.122.9.210 (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Except in the majority of the classic series, it is very clear where each story begins and ends. For example one would not seriously suggest that Mawdryn Undead, Terminus and Enlightenment make up a twelve parter. As for the revived series, up until series 9 it was also fairly easy to split up stories. Now I can see no justifiable reason why The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived should not be referred to as a two parter, and why Face the Raven/Heaven Sent/Hell Bent should not be referred to as a three parter. Both stories flow perfectly between each episode and it makes perfect sense to refer to these stories as such. If the DWM wants to refer to them as single part stories, then so be it. They are after all not the be-all and end-all source for the information we give. If somewhere down the line an episode might be referred to as the official "300th story" then we will have to consider to alter the story numbering, but that is not a problem we face at the moment. To sum up, I would find it irrational to refer to these two stories as single parters. BlueBlue11 (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The story in The Girl Who Died is different to the story in The Woman Who Lived. In one story The Doctor repels an alien invasion of Viking Norway and meets a girl. In the other, he runs into the girl again an unspecified time later and stops a different group of aliens invading 18th century England. You could move the second story to later in the season and lose nothing. You could move it to NEXT season and lose nothing. Aside from the Doctor and Me there are no characters, storylines or concepts linking the two. The final three episodes are different in that there are linking concepts but still each tells a different story, is set in a different location and features a different supporting cast. Which is why I bring up the Black Guardian trilogy, because that's the model I think most appropriate here.2.122.9.210 (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It also feels as if most of your argument for why these five episodes should be classified as two and three-parters respectively have more to do with your personal feelings about the episode than any objective assessment. Sure DWM is not the be-all-end-all source, but it's a stronger source than a person or a group of people's personal views. Especially since the magazine has official ties to the production and its story counts are generally what we use as guidelines for what constitutes a story and what doesn't. This is about personal feeling, it's about presenting the information in as accurate a way as possible. If Moffat says "The Girl Who Died" is a different story from "The Woman Who Lived," then the two episodes are not the same story.

I would like to point out that my argument for why these five episodes are two and three parter is based on an objective assessment of the episodes themselves. And as I alluded to before you can not compare new series episodes to classic series episodes as the formats are completely different anyway. BlueBlue11 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"Objective assessment" is original research. DonQuixote (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Got confused by the user above's argument, sorry. BlueBlue11 (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

There was a previously trailer at the beginning of Hell Bent that recapped the previous two episodes. BlueBlue11 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And The Woman Who Lived and Heaven Sent didn't have one. "Previously on" sections aren't evidence of whether multiple episodes are a single story. They are just evidence of whether plot threads from previous episodes will be revisited. Again, this isn't about feeling. If it was I would agree that Face the Raven/Heaven Sent/Hell Bent feel like a three-parter (not The Girl Who Died and the Woman Who Lived though. Those two feel very distinct). However, feelings are essentially original research. Comments made by the production team and those involved in the show are the best way to go, and the closest we have to that is Tom Spilsbury is apparently going to be classifying all five episodes as separate stories in Doctor Who Magazine based on conversations with Steven Moffat. We can see wait until the Magazine is released, but it seems to make the most sense to go by that classification, unless there are comments by someone closer to the production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.26.5 (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me point out an earlier interview with Steven Moffat: "The rule I’ve got is that you won’t be absolutely certain whether a show is going to be a two-parter or not. And sometimes something that looks like it’s going to be a single, isn’t a single." BlueBlue11 (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me quote what Tom Spilsbury posted online over the weekend:

"The Magician's Apprentice / The Witch's Familiar, Under the Lake / Before the Flood, The Girl Who Died, The Woman Who Lived, The Zygon Invasion / The Zygon Inversion, Sleep No More, Face the Raven, Heaven Sent, Hell Bent

That's how Steven asked us to count them in the magazine – and how we'll be treating this year's run in the DWM Season Survey. Seems sensible."

I've bolded the crucial part. Steven Moffat himself - the man who is in charge of Doctor Who and who wrote several of the episodes in question - has stated that both the Ashildr episodes and the final trilogy are seperate stories, as stated by the man in charge of the official magazine. How much more official do you want?2.220.205.108 (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That's great! If that makes it into a source that we can cite, then we'll be sure to change it. DonQuixote (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll check this months DWM as soon as it comes out and report.2.220.205.108 (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

He's also stated they're a three parter. How can one thing Steven Moffat said have more credibility than another thing Steven Moffat said? BlueBlue11 (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Where has he said it's a three-parter? If you're referring to the DS article quoted above, he says it's a 'trilogy' of stories that 'cliffhanger into each other' but 'don't feel like a 3-parter'. None of which is him saying 'it's a 3-parter' whereas (assuming Tom Spilsbury isn't lying, and I see no reason why he should) we do have at least anecdotal evidence that he has expressed the opposite view.2.220.205.108 (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Saying they "don't feel like a three parter" isn't the same as saying "they are not a three parter". BlueBlue11 (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Nor is it the same as saying it IS a three-parter. So far as I can see, nobody has provided any firm evidence that the production team view this as a three-parter, so I'm unsure why it's been listed as that and the burden of proof has been put on those who disagree. But provided DWM gives us something citeable next week, the debate will be pretty much over so far as I can see.2.220.205.108 (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Would the season poll be in the next issue? Or will it be the one released in January? Because we might be waiting a bit longer than next week to source it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.26.5 (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It can be noted that the DWM initially referred to Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords as a one parter and a two parter as well. And obviously we didn't go by that because I think we were already calling them a three parter before the DWM changed their mind. BlueBlue11 (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Everyone - including DWM and the Radio Times - reported that Utopia was a seperate story. That was how they were briefed by the production team, who were trying to keep the big twist quiet. Once the story aired in full, I think everyone agreed that it was a 3-parter (including DWM, but as a monthly print magazine they were obviously a bit slower off the mark). It helped that RTD, if I recall, appeared on Totally Doctor Who and confirmed verbally that it was a 3-parter. Obviously there is no Totally Doctor Who now, so it's a bit more difficult to pin down the view of the showrunner - especially when he's deliberately being a bit tricksy and vague as Moffat so often is. Nevertheless, as DWM have specifically spoken to Moffat about these episodes and he has told them how he sees it, I can't see any problem with taking their view as the closest we'll ever get to an 'official' one. I'm happy if everyone wants to leave the article as it is until DWM address the matter which should be in the December issue (the season poll will be in the Jan issue but there will be reviews of Face the Raven, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent in December - DWM always review multi-part stories all together so we'll be able to see from that how they view them). It's worth noting that DWM already reviewed The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived as two seperate stories rather than one.194.176.105.154 (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The Telegraph also lists only a two-part finale with "Face the Raven" as a separate episode. Note that the article states that "Steven Moffat has revealed the episode titles and synopses for the ninth series". The article also lists "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" as two separate episodes. Moffat saying that the final three episodes lead into one another (as claimed in AlexTheWhovian's first source) is very different from stating that they are explicitly a three-parter. From what I can see, there appears to be a wider range of sources listing a two-part finale, not a three-part finale. Also, by the logic currently being used to group the episodes in question, "A Good Man Goes to War" and "Let's Kill Hitler" from series 6 should be grouped as one as their plots focus on River Song's story, much like "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" focus on Ashildr/Me. Is there someone who can get a copy of the official production numbers of all series 9 episodes? Otherwise, this debate will not end. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 12:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The usage of production codes was ceased from Series 7; one only needs to look at the List of Serials page for this. Alex|The|Whovian 23:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I still think the only thing that will end this debate once and for all is if a story is officially promoted in the future as the 300th or something. BlueBlue11 (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how waiting four years for the 300th story makes much sense. We've used Doctor Who Magazine to determine what constitutes a story before. There's no reason not to go with that again in this case, especially if Steven Moffat has been in direct communication with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.26.5 (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Well the new DWM is out and yes, they have reviewed the final three episodes as three seperate stories, as they did episodes 5 and 6, though their reasons for doing so are not addressed in the text. Is that sufficient grounds to update the article or should we wait for the season poll to see if that throws any more light on the matter?90.219.230.20 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Had to access my computer to get here. From all of the information above, it seems more than clear that the final three episodes are considered separate by Steven Moffat and the DWM. The only person who disagrees with this is AlexTheWhovian, who seems adamant that it should remain a three parter despite no evidence towards that. At the moment there's no clear cut answer, but all evidence points towards three stories and saying otherwise is entirely subjective with no reason at all for it being one story. Microbat98 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Microbat98 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears as if someone needs to re-read this discussion and its complete content. Come back when you have. Alex|The|Whovian 01:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with the episode table, just the line stating that it's the first three parter since series three, despite that not being factual yet. The episode table has to have story numbers and I have no quarrel with that, but there is no need for a line commenting on it, since it is not a fact. ~ Microbat98 (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I have read the discussion. People have continuously given evidence against how you think it should be, with you having no hard evidence and going against the DWM poll, which is what we've always used as an official source for the story numbers. ~ [[User:M(talk) 01:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

We also have [7] this source stating that Doctor Who Extra will be paired as The Girl Who Died / The Woman Who Lived, Face the Raven, Heaven Sent / Hell Bent. Alex|The|Whovian 12:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that in that case with lots of evidence that face the raven is a different story, it should be treated as such. I think both the girl who died & The woman who lived should be separate as should Heaven sent & Hell icrobat98|Microbat98]] bent as DWM is treating as separate stories as per Moffat's request. [[User:95.150.127.229 (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)|95.150.127.229 (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)]]

Unless someone like @AlexTheWhovian disagrees, I think we should go for it and at the very minimum make it so Face the Raven is a seperate story. I'll change it now 95.150.121.191 (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

What on Earth are you doing when you sign your posts? Holy crap, you're messing up others posts as well. Alex|The|Whovian 12:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Face the raven has been changed so that it is a separate story due to the overwhelming evidence such as DWM, the DVD case and most promotional material 95.150.121.191 (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Edokter: Please read the above. No one is arguing the opposing case anymore, hence consensus. Do not revert further, especially given your lack of replies or conversation here from yourself. Alex|The|Whovian 22:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't see that much of a consensus, and other have already started reverting. So, please list all sources, and then we can go from there. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

A consensus is a general agreement, which is what we have here - an agreement, and no-one disagreeing. That is, except you, who has decided upon himself that there's "no consensus", without putting your own reasons across for disagreeing with the above discussion. 22:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It is nice to think of them like that. Face The Raven leads into the finale but isn't actually part of it. As said by the BBC website the finale is 2 parts.http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/entries/30f438bc-7a6b-40ed-9fbb-cca0a5f66476 here is the proof. Also The Girl who died and the woman who lived ARE two parters because of the similiarity of their names despite having wildly different plots.92.3.207.253 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Got a copy of the latest DWM, here is the quote from Doctor Who Magazine regarding their survey:

"Controversially (perhaps), we've decided not to combine The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived, or Face the Raven, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent - as despite their linked nature, the individual styles of each episode meant that we couldn't really consider them as true multi-parters, and we didn't want to short change readers by forcing you to give a combined score."

Personally I am reading this as a way of avoiding the debate rather than intentionally taking a side on the matter. However, if you are going to use this as your source for breaking up the episodes you are also going to tear up 5/6 and 11/12 for the same reason you've torn off episode 10. I would of course note (as I did at the time) that before broadcast Steven Moffat made the observation he was deliberately holding back the information on how the episodes were going out (barring the three undisputed stories as there wasn't much point), nobody was allowed to say officially how the episodes were going out or in what broadcast structure. Quoting the official site is also going to lead to problems, they have proven to be troublesome in the past (such as supporting David Yates' false claims about having a Doctor Who movie in the works) but ultimately they are the BBC, so can't be judged on the occasional slip up (which anyone could ultimately have). All in all, we've got a big mess, that has very intentionally been created to wind up people like ourselves (I believe Steven Moffat uses the term "list makers").

Doctor Who Magazine is telling us to consider these five episodes as totally separate for the purposes of a poll due to wildly different styles. Take that as you will, but we can't really use that as proof about Face the Raven if we are then going to immediately ignore their point that the exact same principle divides up the rest of the story as well as another one. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand it's confusing. we should use whatever has the most reliable sources. I would also say DWM and Steven Moffat should take the highest priority though as they are both official. 95.150.127.177 (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

DWM Final 3 Episodes

"Here at DWM, we've been arguing about all sorts of things - and not just whether to count Face the Raven, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent as one story, two, or three. In the end we went with three - partly because I'm in charge, partly because Steven Moffat agreed when we asked him how he thought we should arrange the Season Survey form, and partly because I want to see if we really do have any influence over Wikipedia." - Tom Spilsbury, Doctor Who Magazine 495. Looks like the final 3 episodes are all separate then. 109.151.163.216 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hah, little dig there, Spilsbury. Savvy. It's decided. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war going on here, I've reverted it (again) back to the version we all agreed on based on the DWM/Moffat source which is the best one we currently have. Can anyone who disagrees at least give their reasons here before editing it back?2.223.144.106 (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I will direct the other IP editor to discuss their issues here. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss here, no source has ever said that "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are standalones. You can't prove that the statement is in DWM. "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" link directly, they are grouped together in Doctor Who Extra, at the end of "Heaven Sent" there is a To Be Continued and at the beginning of "Hell Bent" there is a previously. Various sources have said they are a two-parter including Steven Moffat. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So you disagree because I "can't prove that the statement is in DWM"? That is not necessary, nor does it dictate a reliable source. If it is in DWM, then there is no arguing it. Moffat also later gave this statement, hence overriding the last. Can you prove that it's not in DWM? No? Funny how it only works one way, hey? ;) It still does not explain why you are also reverting the split of episodes 5 and 6, and a "To Be Continued" does not dictate a two-parter - a story or two in Series 6 also dictates this. Alex|The|Whovian^?

You still have not provided a verifiable source. "The Girl Who Died" / "The Woman Who Lived" and "Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent" are both grouped together in Doctor Who Extra, both listed as two-parters on DVD, both have been explicitly referred to as a two-parter by various reliable sources including Steven Moffat. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't, the first IP editor of this section did. DWM is as reliable as it gets. Steven Moffat then changed his mind - people do do that. You can even use {{Cite magazine}} to cite DWM, which is exactly what's going to be done. Apparently, the grouping of the story numbers for the past eight series have all been based on DWM, so why not Series 9? Because for you, it falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I accept that. But there is no source for "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" being standalone. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Check the discussion right above this one: "Controversially (perhaps), we've decided not to combine The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived, or Face the Raven, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent - as despite their linked nature, the individual styles of each episode meant that we couldn't really consider them as true multi-parters, and we didn't want to short change readers by forcing you to give a combined score." Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

That statement is saying that due to their differences, for the convenience of the readers voting, they are separated. That is not saying that they are not two-parters. I don't see why we are interpreting one source in a particular way instead of using various reliable sources that explicitly state that they are two-parters. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly the same as the first source in meaning. They're not combining and counting them as the same story. And because this source is far newer, overriding old sources that speculated by themselves that they were the same story, and it is directly from Moffat - if that isn't reliable, then nothing is. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The DVDs do appear to list them as 2-parters, but I would say that the word of Moffat, as reported in the official magazine in a column which was only published a few days ago, is as up-to-date and official a source as we currently have. I have yet to see any source in which Moffat unambiguously states they are 2-parters (only interviews where he teases the idea that they MIGHT be) so I would say that unless any newer, better source comes to light in future it's an open-and-shut case. For now. Especially since DWM has been the basis for deciding these matters in the past.2.223.144.106 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian in the past you have said that how new a source is doesn't matter. The magazine does not say they are not two-parters, it says that they are separating them on the Season Survey purely because of the difference between the parts and due to this they didn't wan't to force readers to give a consolidated score. Steven Moffat himself has said on multiple occasions that they are two-parters, DVDs list them as two-parters and they are grouped together in Doctor Who Extra. Steven Moffat agreed with laying out the Season Survey that way, he didn't say that they were actually separate. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The two episodes are exactly the same as "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived". Two separate stories only linked by a "To Be Continued". "Heaven Sent" is one story. About the Doctor inside his confession dial. It's only the end of this story that directly leads into the finale, just like "The Girl Who Died". Even "Closing Time" does this and no-one says "Closing Time" and "The Wedding of River Song" are a two-parter. And if Moffat wanted the Series 9 finale to be a two-parter, he WOULD have told DWM to list them as a two-parter. 109.151.163.216 (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You are clutching at straws now. Both "The Girl Who Died" / "The Woman Who Lived" and "Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent" have been confirmed on multiple occasions to be two-parters by Steven Moffat and various other sources. You are interpreting the source incorrectly to suit your own agenda, it does not contradict or override various other sources, in fact it supports them. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point to some of these sources for the benefit of the rest of us rather than just repeatedly telling everyone they exist? We have the one where Moffat says the final stories are 'linked but don't really feel like a 3-parter', or words to that effect, but that's hardly conclusive. Remember, sometimes people just change their minds or intentionally mislead to avoid spoiling. RTD said Utopia was a seperate story initially, but once they'd seen it everyone decided it wasn't. A Good Man Goes to War and Let's Kill Hitler were touted as a 2-parter until they aired when everyone seemed to decide they really weren't. I would say an opinion expressed after the episodes have aired trumps one from before because there's no agenda of trying to keep things vague and mysterious to build tension and audience interest. In this case we know that after series 9 had aired in full Tom Spilsbury and Steven Moffat hashed out exactly how they both wanted to treat these episodes and agreed on the layout that Wikipedia has now adopted. I don't see that there's any way around that, even if you disagree with it.2.223.144.106 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, let's settle this argument. The OFFICIAL magazine accompanying the television show, Doctor Who Magazine, has stated that "The Girl Who Died", "The Woman Who Lived", "Sleep No More", "Face the Raven", "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are all single part stories within the series, on numerous occasions. Throughout the course of the series, the official reviews of the episodes within the magazine have listed them separately (whilst the remainder of the stories (considered two-parters) in the series have been reviewed together as one). The most recent issue, published merely 3/4 days ago, clearly states that these stories are NOT two-parters. The quote that I copied at the beginning of this thread proves that Steven Moffat himself sees episode 11 and 12 as NOT a two-parter. This is the most recent source from the man himself. And yes, I don't have any "official" proof that what I've just said is true, but anyone who purchases the magazine for themselves would be able to verify it (and why would I make this up anyway). "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived", and "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are NOT two-part stories. They are just slightly linked, like Steven Moffat said right at the beginning of the series. If you find any NEW sources later than W/B 4/1/16, feel free to change the article. 109.151.163.216 (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. It's tempting, for the sake of neatness if nothing else, to want all the episodes with 'mirrored' titles to be 2-parters, but I don't think that was the intention. Some of them are 'true' 2-parters but in other cases the titles merely indicate that they are linked thematically or that there are certain overarching plot threads that run through them, but they are standalone stories nontheless. 2.223.144.106 (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the episodes were reviewed separately is most likely due to the differences, not because they are standalones. The magazine has not at any point explicitly referred to the episodes as standalones. "The Girl Who Died" / "The Woman Who Lived" and "Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent" are grouped together in Doctor Who Extra, showing the executive producers (including Moffat) consider them two-parters. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The magazine HAS explained that the episodes are standalone in their opinion. They do so TWICE in the most recent issue, and they explain that Moffat has endorsed that view. Go out and read it for yourself if you don't believe me. The way the special features are arranged on the DVDs is not and never has been a criteria for how the episodes themselves should be viewed. And again, even if Moffat DID think they were 2-parters when he was working on the DVD extras, we have evidence that he has subsequently changed his mind on the matter. Which, as showrunner, he's entitled to do.2.217.41.206 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Keyword in that OPINION. An opinion, even if endorsed by Moffat, does not constitute fact. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

In the absence of an official statement from the BBC about the status of these episodes, we don't have much else to go on except opinion. The opinion of the showrunner and writer/co-writer of three of the five disputed episodes would, I respectfully suggest, carry more weight than yours.2.217.41.206 (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Steven Moffat WROTE the episodes and is the show-runner, so his recent confirmation should be the one to go off. Hell, episodes 11 and 12 weren't even filmed together like normal two-part stories are. 109.151.163.216 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The magazine says that it can't consider them true multi-parters, saying that are multi-parters, just not in the traditional sense. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No, that would be the case if they said it couldn't be considered a traditional multi-parter. They say it couldn't be a true one, which means it would be an untrue multi-parter, which means not a multi-parter. You know, if we want to be overly technical about it. It's rather simple really. The strong, official source says they are separate, so they separate. End of story.71.167.26.5 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't say it's the end of the story, more like a break until somebody else decides to come along and screw it up all over again. Steven Moffat made it clear from the start of his time on the show that one of the things he loved to do was screw with "list makers" and we now know the team behind Doctor Who Magazine share his sentiments. We will go where the evidence takes us. Ruffice98 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The episodes being grouped together in Doctor Who Extra and being listed on DVD/Blu-ray as two-parters is official, an opinion, even if supported by Moffat, does not override the BBC's official stance on the matter. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

And what guideline or policy are you going on when you base it on the media release? Wikipedia uses official source - such as this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You are interpreting the source incorrectly to override various sources including the BBC and Steven Moffat, the source isn't saying that aren't two-parters, it is saying due to the differences between the parts, they are allowing readers to give individual scores. At no point does it explicitly state that they are not two-parters. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

They explicitly say they are counting the final three episodes as three stories with the approval of Steven Moffat. That means three stories, which is not a two-parter. Your interpretation is the incorrect one overriding sources.74.9.3.146 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, they are saying that with the approval of Steven Moffat, they are allowing readers to give individual scores due to how different the parts are. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Minus you, there is consensus to display them how they currently are. Consensus is not unanimity. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the consensus has no grounds. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In your opinion. Nonetheless, it's there. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The supposed consensus is based on an incorrect interpretation of a source, and therefore means nothing. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Again: That is in your opinion. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not "in my opinion", you have interpreted the source incorrectly, it does not at any point call them standalones, all it says is it is allowing readers to give individual scores due to the differences between the parts. How is that saying they are standalones? It isn't. This is just your opinion with no source to back it up, the source actually supports my point. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Original source: "We've been arguing about all sorts of things - and not just whether to count Face the Raven, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent as one story, two, or three.". I think this clearly says the opposite of what you're claiming it says. He says it's PARTLY because they wanted to know how to arrange it on the "Season Survey" form, and the rest is just in general. 109.151.163.216 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The source clearly states that the only reason that the episodes are separate on the Season Survey is that due to the difference between the parts, they did not want to force readers to give a combined score. The source is saying that they are two-parters, but due to the differences between the parts, they are allowing readers to give individual scores. The episodes being grouped together in Doctor Who Extra, being listed together on DVD/Blu-ray releases and Steven Moffat referring to them as two-parters on multiple occasions are all official and explicitly refer to the status of the episodes, and therefore are all better sources than DWM which is not made by the same people who make the show and therefore is no more reliable than other magazines. You have interpreted the source incorrectly and are claiming it to say something it doesn't. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, sorry if I'm being stupid and/or have missed something obvious, but where exactly does the source say what you said in your first sentence? 109.151.163.216 (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"we didn't want to short change readers by forcing you to give a combined score." 5.67.73.111 (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Forgive my lesser knowledge of the entirety of this debate, but looking back at old episodes that are confirmed two-parters, you can clearly see that both the director and writer are the same for each episode (e.g. "The Impossible Astronaut"/"Day of the Moon" both have director Toby Haynes and writer Steven Moffat). From what I can see there has never been a case of any two episodes with the same director and writer not being a two-parter, so couldn't this be used as credibility towards the finale being a two-parter? Also, I am slightly confused as to why the official listings for both the Series 9 DVD and DW Extra releases are looked over in favour of DWM. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 11:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! An incorrect interpretation of an opinion in a unofficial source is being used to override various explicit official sources. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything you've just stated is your own observations and original research, and hence is useless to this discussion. And because Moffat himself, the show-runner, has had a say with DWM, and not over the DVDs. Hence, more reliable. This discussion is now just going in circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexTheWhovian (talk • contribs) 00:54, 22 January 2016‎

I'm sorry Alex, but I have to disagree with you. The quote from DWM you provided above supports the final two episodes being a two-parter: "Controversially (perhaps), we've decided not to combine The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived, or Face the Raven, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent - as despite their linked nature, the individual styles of each episode meant that we couldn't really consider them as true multi-parters, and we didn't want to short change readers by forcing you to give a combined score." This statement supports the fact that DWM's decision to separate episodes was purely their own choice for review purposes only as they did not want to force readers to give a single score for a two-part episode (hence, "Controversially (perhaps), we've decided ... we couldn't consider ... we didn't want to short change readers" as this does not follow the official pairings of episodes based on the DVD and DW Extra releases). I have to agree with the others, your incorrect interpretation of this source is being used as a grounds to override explicit official sources. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 02:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You seemed to have missed the part about "That's how Steven asked us to count them in the magazine" and "partly because Steven Moffat agreed when we asked him how he thought we should arrange the Season Survey form" - might I suggest that you actually read the magazine, and the entirety of the past discussions? Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian Please discuss the issue politely rather than accusing other users of ignorance. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Alex is right. Steven Moffat approved this count and Doctor Who Magazine is an official tie in and the standard we've used in the past. That's all there is to it. It's the correct interpretation. Going by DVDs, which only group the episodes together for a special feature, but does not actually explicitly calling the episodes one story and does this grouping without Moffat's seal of approval, doesn't make sense. That's the incorrect interpretation.71.167.26.5 (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Steven Moffat just gave them the green light to allow readers to give individual scores. DVDs and Doctor Who Extra are official, it is not an incorrect interpretation as the sources are explicit, meaning that it is not open to interpretation, and to be honest, any source that is open to interpretation isn't acceptable. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Except you are making an interpretation about the DVDs. You are deciding that Doctor Who extra on the DVDs grouping the two together makes it one story when that is not explicitly stated. Doctor Who Magazine isn't open to interpretation. They've been very clear about the variety of reasons for this classification, including Steven Moffat's backing (which you seem to want to erroneously dismiss). Furthermore, that magazine is just as official as the DVDs. You are creating your own narrative, readjusting your argument whenever a poster presents you with contradictory evidence.71.167.26.5 (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I have been putting forward the same argument for the entirety of the discussion. I am not interpreting anything, the DVD having x/x on the cover is explicit, there being one Doctor Who Extra episode for the two episodes is explicit, you are the one doing the interpreting. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I said readjusting, not changing. You keep trying to pick apart a piece of the Doctor Who Magazine quote, moving onto another when one nitpick doesn't gain you any traction. Irregardless, you're view of the DVDs are interpretations. I've got my Series 8 DVD in front of me, the cover of which lists Deep Breath/Into the Dalek (new line) Robot of Sherwood/Listen/Time Heist (new line) The Caretaker/Kill the Moon (new line) Mummy on the Orient Express (new line) Flatline/In the Forest of the Night (new line) Dark Water/Death in Heaven. Unless you want to argue that those are all multi-parters as well, the "x/x" on a Doctor Who DVD cover is completely meaningless and you are attaching your own interpretation to it. As for Doctor Who Extra, on the groupings do not reflect whether something is a two-parter or a story, as Dark Water and Death in Heaven each had their own individual Doctor Who Extra. Hence, these are your interpretations, not evidence. Doctor Who Magazine, on the other hand, is official, and has been consistent and clear in its meaning and classifications. That's the way to go.71.167.26.5 (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The Series 8 boxset titles and arrows on a chalkboard, there are no forward slashes. On the Series 9 Part 1 DVD, it has "The Magician's Apprentice / The Witch's Familar, (new line) Under the Lake / Before the Flood, (new line) The Girl Who Died / The Woman Who Lived". Interpreting is forming your own view on what something says, you can't interpret something that is explicit. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes, using old sources as your backup in the evidence of newer sources. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I have the USA dvd set for Series 8, where they do use forward slashes, not a chalkboard. A quick internet search shows back covers for other UK DVDs for Doctor Who series also use the forward slash as a means of simply separating episodes (regardless of whether they are related or not). As such, the forward slash is not explicit as it doesn't have the meaning 5.67.73.111 is trying to attach to it. Hence, using the DVD cover as a determination of whether something is a two-parter is a bad source. It is 5.67.73.111's personal interpretation.71.167.26.5 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

An incorrect interpretation of an opinion in a magazine is a bad source. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I would agree, but that isn't the case here. We aren't making an incorrect interpretation, nor is Doctor Who Magazine simply providing their opinion. They are presenting the stories as Moffat approved, and a consensus has been reached on that basis.71.167.26.5 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I you all want to list them incorrectly then go ahead. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Then it appears as if we have consensus. Finally, this discussion is over. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad we have an agreement then. 71.167.26.5 (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

DWM isn't a reliable source though - this is just their opinion. Same as using the wrong names for the first three stories of 1963-64 213.104.176.176 (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Since when is it Wikipedia policy to take one source over many? 5.67.73.111 (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

DWM has been used many times over the past years with no complaints. To the last IP editor who posted in this discussion, you've agreed to the consensus. Do not bring the topic up again. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, DWM is a reliable source, but the reason why the episodes seem to have been split is definitely a matter of opinion, and not a source by any means.Theoosmond (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, look at what the "source" says - ' we didn't want to short change readers by forcing you to give a combined score'. This is not a statement of fact that they are different stories, it is a statement that they have only done it to allow people to rank them differently. 'individual styles' is point of view rather than fact as well. Before the flood has a different style to Under the lake due to the 2nd half being set [in terms of the location] before the events of part one, and the second half having the events of one location influencing the other events of one time of the other [Something not in the first part] - doesn't make it two stories. 2.222.71.129 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

a matter of opinion Yes, an opinion with contributions from Moffat himself. Are we still going with this discussion? It is quite literally going in circles. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The poll and classifications in Doctor Who Magazine has been evidence enough in the past without the explanation of their line of thinking. The confirmation that Moffat gave his approval is just bonuses in this case that cements the veracity of the source.

Rachel Talalay explicitly states in this video that the episodes are a two parter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blKU20e_d0c

"I'm tired of saying how different this finale is. This finale continues, it's continuous, it's a two parter. The episodes are very different as well."BlueBlue11 (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Where's the confirmation that Moffat gave his approval?Theoosmond (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

DWM. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

But is Moffat's opinion the word, or is it's the BBC's?Theoosmond (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The BBC hasn't done anything to contradict Moffat's word, so that's a moot point. Either way, Moffat is the man in charge and Doctor Who Magazine is the standard we've used in the past. That's the way to go.71.167.26.5 (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The BBC has contradicted it, for example the official website, Doctor Who Extra, DVDs, official press releases. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

We've already been over why the DVDs and Doctor Who Extra don't actually indicate what is a two-parter and what isn't. Nothing on the official website seems to contradict Doctor Who Magazine either, so again Doctor Who Magazine is the way to go.71.167.26.5 (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No we haven't, a reason was provided against using DVDs, but it doesn't work because it was using the Series 8 US boxset (which is put together by BBC America with no input from the producers of the show) to disprove the UK Series 9: Part 1 DVD (which is put together by the BBC with input from the producers including Steven Moffat). No reason has been provided for why Doctor Who Extra doesn't what is a two-parter and what isn't, why on earth would two episodes have a joint Doctor Who Extra is they are not a two-parter? It doesn't make sense. Official and undeniable sources are being ignored with no reason provided as to why. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, see the earlier discussion. The UK DVDs have used that "/" you highlighted as the proof to separate unrelated episodes for years. At the very least, the Series 5, 6, and 7 UK DVDs all do this. So unless you want to argue that DVDs also prove that Cold War and Hide are a two-parter, that argument is moot. As for Doctor Who Extra, it wasn't ignored, we went over this. It has been inconsistent about how it groups episodes together (Dark Water and Death in Heaven, a two-parter, have individual Doctor Who Extra episodes.) As such, claiming that the episodes are group together because they are a two-parter doesn't track, since that isn't a standard they've used previously. These sources are deniable, not matter how much you wish to claim otherwise. Doctor Who Magazine is consistent and clear in its meaning, clearly determining whether something is a two-parter. And again, Moffat gave his approval to that count. 71.167.26.5 (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

OK then, how about the fact that "The Girl Who Died" had a cliffhanger and To Be Continued and the next time trailer was after the credits, the same goes for "Face the Raven" and "Heaven Sent", also at the start of "Hell Bent" there is a previously which included footage from "Face the Raven" and "Heaven Sent", in the revived series these things only apply to multi-parters (before anyone mentions Series 6 episodes, "The Rebel Flesh" had a To Be Continued and "A Good Man Goes to War" had a previously because of the arc, not the stories). 5.67.73.111 (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Could it not also be said that the series 9 episodes have them because of the arc, not the stories? Etron81 (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Series 6's arc was very heavy, whereas Series 9's arc was very light. Series 9 episodes have them because of narrative continuation. They are clearly multi-parters, episodes are only standalone if the story is completely contained to the episode with no linking elements to the following episode(s) other than the series arc. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"To Be Continued" has never been an indication of what a story is. Besides, "Heaven Sent" didn't have "To Be Continued" like you claim. Either way, your argument essentially makes you an arbitrary decider of what the purpose of a "To Be Continued" is. It's ridiculous.71.167.26.5 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue politely rather than accusing me of lying when I am telling the truth, "Heaven Sent" had a To Be Continued. How come the each episode ended like the first part of each two-parter of Series 9 and the following episode(s) started like the second part of each two-parter of Series 9? You don't have a leg to stand on, you are taking one questionable source of many. DWM is not made by the same people who make the show, they can't prove that Steven Moffat approved, it can't be cited, and doesn't explicitly state whether or not the episodes are multi-parters. I would maybe accept using DWM as a source if it were made by the same people who make the show, but it is not, meaning it is no more reliable than any other magazine. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No, "Heaven Sent" does not have a "To Be Continued". Your argument is now apparently how come the episodes ended the same. Well, no episodes ended the same. They had different plots, cliffhangers, or resolutions. Sure, some ended with "To Be Continued", but history shows that doesn't correspond with the concept of a two-parter. You want us to set separate standards for Series 9, but that doesn't make sense, as there is no reason for us to do so other than you want us to. And the fact that Steven Moffat approved of this count is literally in the above text from the magazine we are citing. The magazine has strong ties to the production team (for example, Moffat got around to choosing the title for the recent Christmas special because DWM had to go to press). Are you now accusing them of lying about talking to Moffat? Either way, you said a while ago that you were given up on this argument and it was fine for us to continue listing the serials as is.71.167.26.5 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought there was, but I just re-watched and there wasn't, so it seems "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" aren't a two-parter after all. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

And so, after a month, it ends. I have no words. 86.173.91.19 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)