Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

2009 Specials outdated

Maybe finding a universally acceptable reference is delaying this BUT...it is really odd that no one has updated that the "Waters of Mars" episode aired way back in June 2009 (or something like that). Also the last official rumors I heard (BBC is secretive about precise dates and does change its mind) placed the first part of the last special on a November holiday evening and the second part still on Christmas Eve. Point is someone needs to have permission to update episode info. 75.81.56.176 (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about! "Waters of Mars" did not air in June, it in fact airs in November (date to be confirmed), and there is no source on this planet that states that any special airs on Xmas Eve!! There are no such thing as "official rumors". magnius (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Number of made-for-TV films

" 753 individual episodes, including one television film of Doctor Who have been aired, encompassing 200 stories"

While I don't disagree with the number of individual episodes, of course, nor am I dredging up any argument about the number of stories (despite SM and RTC both having agreed publically that the number of stories is open to interpretation, i.e. whether Trial is four or one, whether Shada counts, etc...):

I would like to point out that the number of Television Films is unsourced and probably inaccurate. Yes, the 1996 TV movie was definitely one. However, even if one somehow discounts the Christmas specials from being TV films (despite not being within the seasons' numbering, not fitting the time slot, and not being aired on the same schedule as other more standard episodes), do not Planet of the Dead, The Waters of Mars, and the Tennant/RTD finale episodes count as definitely being TV films? If not, please cite what makes one a TV movie and the others not so, despite similar lengths and other details. 173.12.172.149 (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What it probably means is "including THE Television film" - the 1996 film often called by fans The TVM - probably there to show that this is counted in the total more than anything else. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Christmas episodes, this year's specials, etc., are just that - specials. I think unless the BBC calls them "TV films" (which is, granted, a fairly nebulous term), we can't call them TV films either. umrguy 42 21:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

End of Time

Can I just ask a question here - is "His final story, The End of Time, in which he will regenerate into Matt Smith's Doctor, has yet to be scheduled, but is expected to air at the end of 2009 or very early in 2010." really enough to say that both parts of the story are called "The End of Time" (Part one and part two). This could easily be lizo making the mistake of confusing "last episode" (ie the second part)with last story (ie both parts) - and given that all other two parters in the RTD era have different titles for both episodes, now would be a strange time to change that. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that both parts have the same title. It is known that he regenerates in the final story, and the title of the episode is sourced to be The End of Time...so what is the problem? magnius (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the End of Time page suggests that both episodes are titled "End of Time" - plus the "TBA" that used to be there for part one isn't there now. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And given that RTD has two production codes, that would suggest that the episodes have different titles - I don't think they'd be different production codes it the title was the same. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The latest source states this is the "story's" title, so it could go either way. See also Talk:The End of Time (Doctor Who)#Confirmation of "The End of Time". — Edokter • Talk • 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a good source that states the penultimate episode has a six word title, I'll see if I can find it. If true (and it is a good source) that pretty much kills of the Part 1/2 idea magnius (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The title is still a heavily guarded secret. Once it is revealed, we can split the article. — Edokter • Talk • 16:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The latest DWM is the place where RTD himself has revealed that there is another title to be revealed for part 1 [1] magnius (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputable Canon Stories

There are four episodes which can be classed as disputable official stories, they are Attack of the Graske, Infinite Quest, Music of the Spheres and Dreamland. This is because of a variety of reasons likes them being animated, interactive, talking directly to audience. I have therefore moved them to the Other Stories section. And before anyone mentions the first doctor story where he directly talks to the audience i am willing to pass that off. I however believe that these episodes should not be listed in the official episodes list, until canon is established again. If we have Dimensions in Time and etc in the Other Stories section we should have these episodes in the Other Stories section. JFBeard (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

They were listed as official episodes because they are officilly produced by the BBC as Doctor Who epsiodes, unlike the other stories, which were cross-overs and spoofs. If you have evidense that they are disputed as "official", please provide some sources for this. Canon is not the determining factor here. I'll let it be for now pending further comments. — Edokter • Talk • 00:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Dimensions in Time, Scream of The Shalka and Curse of the Fatal Death are produced by the BBC although they are spoof's. In the end they belong more to the other stories section more than the official list. This is because they are animated and interactive. Animated and Interactive episodes should be treated like Spoof's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFBeard (talk • contribs) 08:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? Those episodes don't spoof anything; they are regular episodes. — Edokter • Talk • 15:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

They aren't regular episodes, they are either animated or interactive. JFBeard (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I can agree that the interactive episodes could be treated as "Other" stories, but the animated ones aren't special in any way other than their production method, and why should that be a factor? The Infinite Quest also explains why the Doctor aged three years during series 3... 130.243.252.194 (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that only official episodes should be in the episodes list (episodes that are counted in the story count). Therfore I would consider whether the Tom Baker Shada and the two Children in need specials should be there, though I dont have a problem with them being there as they are considered 100% canon, well nearly. I dont consider Dimension's in time etc. to be canon. However I do consider the animated stories to be canon, but as they arent official episodes I thnk they should still be in the other stories list. I also like to think that is why he says he is 903 years old rather than because of the passing of three series, I think thats stupid. also I dont think that is his real age, more of an estimate as he always seems to contradict himself about his age. And he adds on three years because of The Infinite Quest, love that story. Also love the fact that it is the same animation that is used to reconstruct The Invasion. Hope they do more reconstructions.Avplegend (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Official BBC Doctor Who site has Dreamland listed alongside the other specials. Shoudl we take this as offical enought to move Dreamland back to the main list?Etron81 (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this list should have anything to do with canon/ non canon. Remember that there is no official Doctor Who canon - the BBC have never stated what is and isn't canon. The practice of putting x as canon and y as non-canon (which is basically what the "other stories section" has become - anything that some people consider non-canon) amounts to origonal research. Who considers it canon/non-canon? Oh right FANS. I said in a (now archived) discussion earlier, that the only reason DIT and A fix were in the "other stories" section is because they were considered non-canon by some, while most of the others that have now been moved (Dremland, Infinite quest etc) were considered canon by most. But again, this is just opinion, because no official Doctor Who cnon exists. So what should go in the main list, and what should go in "other stories" - it shouldn't be a case of canon here non-canon there - because it's non wiki's job to comment on a canon that doesn't exist. Pick a system to use, and apply it consistently to all sotries. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Have we lost the two Children in Need specials now? Isn't that a shame since they both tie in directly to the ordinary episodes? 130.243.252.194 (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed- I would support moving all CiN specials (including Dimensions in Time) to the main list (unnumbered as they were before)as they were all intended to be part of the overall Doctor Who storyline at the time of productionEtron81 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Edited Page

hello have updated page. hope this is OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.23.217 (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to be bold, but you changes have been reverted. Please explain what you're trying to do and get some consensus here before attempting to resotre them (see WP:BRD). In particular you need to be careful about the incoming text anchors (id="xxx"), which I don't really understand and have also broken with one of my edits. Thanks. Maccy69 (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Anchor links act the same header links, so you can link to them using [[List of Doctor Who serials#November special]]. While most specials link to [[#Specials (2009)]], some may still link to the middle of the table. That is why those links need to be preserved. — Edokter • Talk • 12:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Series 5

I know these have not been confirmed but an unofficial list of episodes for this season and writing credits has been compiled here [[2]]. Is it worth uploading them?--Hammard (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(Just a quick note: new discussions go at the bottom, which is why I moved this. The easiest way to do it is to click the "new section"tab at the top.)

To answer your question: no, they shouldn't be added. Information needs to be verifiable which means citing a reliable source, blogs and forums are not considered reliable. Maccy69 (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I didn't think it would do, I just wanted to check. (Sorry about not using the new tab, been a while since I used the discussion forums)--Hammard (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Matt Smith Series One

One thing that has not yet been included in this article is that the 2010 season starring Matt Smith has been promoted by the BBC as Series One. Anyone know why the BBC is promoting it this way. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The bit just before ref [19] says something about series one based on a DWM comment - although I've seen no promotion yet. I'm assuming that they will need to differentiate this somehow from the 2005 series. Edgepedia (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

i understand that some of you are unhappy with my recent edits. i would just like to apologise and assure you i will not edit this page again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.102.102 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Shada

It's time to make a final decision: Should Shada be counted as a serial number? The Doctor Who DVD Releases page does. Not the release, but if you look at the serial numbers, the following DVD release, The Leisure Hive is counted as #109 here but on THAT page it's counted as #110.--The Rogue Leader 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A 'final' decision has already been made. Various sources differ as to whether to include Shada or not (and DVD releases differ depending on the region of issue), and the consesus was to go with the latest list with official imprimatur, which does not include it. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The DVD releases page uses the Region 1 numbering—which is fine, as it's an article about the DVDs—, which we acknowledge in both articles as diverging slightly from the DWM list after The Horns of Nimon. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Filming of Filming

Who put on the link to the piece of youtube-ish footage of the filming of Matt Smith's episodes? As well as being an invasion of the actors privacy is this not a violation of their performance rights. Most comedians would sue your bottoms off if you did this at one of their gigs. As the actors are giving a performance surely recording it and distributing in this way is illegal even if the BBC legal department cant be bothered to sue. It's particularly reprehensible when the episodes havent been aired. Photographs are one thing but actually filming filming is nasty. Unless this footage has come from the BBC...?

Anthony Miller AnthonyEMiller (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

They're in a public place, so the video falls under freedom of panorama, which is quite liberal in the UK. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.gillhams.com/articles/162.cfm Performances are defined in section 180(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act as a live performance of:

a dramatic performance a musical performance a reading or recitation of a literary work, or a performance of a variety act or similar performances.

I doubt very much that fact it's outside doesn't make it right or legal. If I put a gig on outside and pay the acts and then someone records it it's still an infringement of that performers rights to broadcast a film of it. Although it isn't illegal to possess the recording. I think you will find that you are wrong on this. The freedom of panorama was not designed to protect people who are essentially trying to put a dramatic performance on film against the wishes of the artists rather than to show evidence of filming taking place. I've seen Russell T Davis on the television whinging about just this kind of intrusive stuff and I have to admit to some sympathy with his - even if you can find a legal excuse it's still morally repugnant.

Anthony Miller

195.171.4.131 (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Children In Need: 2007 and Time Crash

What is so special about these two mini-episodes to not include them in the OTHER STORIES section?--The Rogue Leader 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of continuity. CIN'05 and Time Crash are acknowledged to be firmly in-canon, as bridging scenes between the series one and three finales and the following Christmas Special, and are, if I'm not mistaken, included on the official DVD releases, something the "other stories" don't do. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

They are still nonetheless mini-episodes, in-canon or not.--The Rogue Leader 11:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The length of episodes doesn't matter; episodes have run the spectrum from seven to seventy-five (and two made-for-TV films). They're still counted as part of the official canon, something the "other stories" are generally not. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point... But there should be a description caption underneath them like all mini-episodes. And I'm not saying they're mini-episodes because of their length. It's a classification--124.149.39.69 (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Connor Shaughnessy here saying sorry for editing i did not know that i was —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.120.21 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

link is to wrong page

This pages link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(series_4) "Journey's End" is linked to the play of the same name, not the Dr. Who "Journey's End" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.176.190 (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Update on writers of Doctor Who Series Five

A recent issue of Doctor Who Magazine has confirmed the writers for all thirteen episodes of the fifth series: Steven Moffat will be writing 6 episodes, Chris Chribnall is confirmed as writing 2 episodes (recently revealed as a two-parter). Further, Mark Gatiss, Gareth Roberts, Toby Whithouse, Richard Curtis and Simon Nye will each write one episode. Could somebody update this page to reflect these recent events, as I cannot? Thank you. --Lord Septimus (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Series One or Five?

Seeing as there still seems to be a great deal of uncertainty regarding the numbering of the 2010 series, could we use a temporary compromise title and call it something like "Fifth series (2010)" or "2010 series" until we have a solid BBC source?. magnius (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"2010 series" seems fine. DonQuixote (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - Series "five" seems correct to nobody. To most fans it's probably season 31 or 32, to new fans or the general public, it's series six, and to the production team it's series 1! Actually, the convention of naming the series as 'season's was started in the 1980s but fans using an American television convention, and at the time the first 'season' was made it was probably not thought of as a season at all, but continuous production. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

, So, unless any objections, should we go ahead change it to "2010 series" until further notice? magnius (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it to "Series 5 (2010)" for now. First because we simply do not know what the series will be called, and second, because renaming it breaks incoming links to this section. So please do not rename for the time being. — Edokter • Talk • 02:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We already know it's not called 'series 5'. I have changed it back to "2010 series", which is correct in lieu of any other specific name. I have also included an {{anchor}}, so there won't be any broken section links.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Subject to the BBC website, I've changed it back.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, apparently Steven Moffat has chimed in in the latest Doctor Who Magazine. As quoted by someone on the Gallifrey Base Forum (I don't have the issue yet myself, so can't verify):

"It's Series Thirty-One of Doctor Who, and it's Series One of Matt Smith's Doctor, Those are both real numbers. I submit that 'Series Five of Doctor Who' means absolutely nothing unless you really believe that Matt Smith is the third Doctor. Everyone knows he's the Eleventh Doctor so that means it's definitely not 'Series Five'. Whichever number you choose, 'Series Five' is the one that's flawed."

"'Series One' is an exciting sentence. 'Series Thirty-One' is an awe-inspiring sentence. 'Series Five' is a boring sentence - and also a complete lie"

So how do we proceed on this page? For my own purposes, I'm just using "the 2010 series", as it's the least confusing option. Should we do the same here? I'm leaning that way, but it's far from an open-and-shut case. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference to 'Series 5' from the BBC website that I previously cited is 3 years old. The article currently includes a more recent statement from Doctor Who magazine calling it Series One, and Moffat's statement puts 'Series 5' right out. I have therefore changed it to '2010 series', which is accurate while avoiding the remaining 1/31 ambiguity (with an anchor in case anything links to the old heading).--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "Series 31". Restarting the numbering at one every time a new creative team takes over is a marketing gimmick, and leads to nothing but confusion (see any long-running Marvel Comics series for examples - in recent years, they've rebooted the numbering every time they needed to boost sales). In three years, would we call it "Series Three (2010 series)"? To a newcomer, that's confusing as well, as those episodes will be in 2012 yet the header would say "2010". No, the only sensible solution is a simple progression from one to thirty-one and beyond; various "specials" that aired after a season could be called 26-A, 30-A, etc. MattHucke ^(t) 14:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested Series Three (2010 series), following the sequence we've used it would be Series Three (2012). If it is going to be called Series One, the BBC is going to have to disambiguate this from the series shown in 2005, because DVDs of both series will be available, and repeats of the 2005 series are still being shown. Surely WP:COMMONNAME applies, whatever the BBC call it is likely to be the common name and until then we can call it 2010 series. Edgepedia (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Per Edgepedia. Calling it Series 31 would add a potentially confusing discontinuity unless the sections for the 2005–2009 series were also renamed accordingly, and there seems no good reason to do that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Although this is a little reaching, a new update on the official website could support the use of "2010 series", at least in the short term until we know what the BBC intend to do: [3]. magnius (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If I might chime in. For the other four series of the "new" Doctor Who has, up until now, been Series 1, 2, 3 and 4. I realize it's up to official BBC naming, but it is Series 5 of the revitalized Doctor Who and Season 31 over all. That is if "Season" is the right word to use for the 63 to 89 Doctor. --Snowboy83 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading Moffat's column about it, I agree that the best name is "Series Fnarg". In all seriousness, Moffat does put forward a good case to refer to S2010 as thirty-one across the board (apart from footnotes explaining that various series were marketed as series X), and retroactively numbering the previous four series to be continuous with McCoy (this, of course, means that the movie and S2009 are specials between series, just like "The Grinning Man" and "The Judas Tree" would be treated if David Renwick were to pen a full series of Jonathan Creek), and actually says that he prefers thirty-one to one, as the latter is for marketing purposes only, and emphasises the explicit continuity between 63-89 and the new series. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

According to BBC America, the trailer for the next season is called "Doctor Who: Season 5 Trailer" Moogagot (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Page Protected Again

I see that the page has gone indefinitely protected again, with no discussion here. Wasn't that a bit unilateral? Etrigan (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And I can't see how the reason given in the edit summary lines up with WP:SILVERLOCK or WP:ROUGH - unsourced material isn't vandalism. Etrigan (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The page is not "indefinitely protected"; it is semi-protected for a week due to repeated adding of unsourced information, sometimes up to 20 times per day. And yes; that is a valid reason to (semi-)protect an article. — Edokter • Talk • 15:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Just requested page be semi-protected again because of unsourced additional by IPs. For example in the last 24 hours we've had [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. Edgepedia (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of BBC7 radio serials

Hi, I note that in December the BBC7 serials were removed from List of Doctor Who serials and replace them with a link to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish#Eighth Doctor New Adventures. I've reverted this change because these two lists are not the same thing:

There were four Big Finish-produced 8th Doctor radio plays broadcast on BBC7 before the Eighth Doctor New Adventures.
Not all Big Finish audio plays - not even all 8th Doctor ones - were broadcast on BBC7. For example, Paul McGann 8th Doctor stories Minuet in Hell, The Company of Friends and all 8th Doctor monthly Big Finish releases between Seasons of Fear and The Next Life were not broadcast on the BBC.
The Radio Plays section on List of Doctor Who serials, as per discussion on the talk page in June/July 2009, is about Doctor Who plays broadcast on BBC radio. This is the one and only criterion for inclusion in this section.

The cross-over between these two lists is more of an intersection than a union. Sorry it's a bit difficult to explain, but the main point to remember is: this section is only for those plays broadcast by the BBC, and there is no other list elsewhere on Wikipedia which replicates all or part this list. Andrew Oakley (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We still end up with a duplicate list of audio plays. Perhaps it is a better idea to meege all audio lists and make the distinction on the list of audio plays itself. This list is primarely intended to list TV serials. — Edokter • Talk • 21:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the vast catalogue of 200+ Big Finish Doctor Who CD/MP3 audio plays (plus 50-odd Whoniverse/companion plays), identifying the tiny number (20 ish) of those actually broadcast by the BBC on a Big Finish list would be very difficult to clearly distinguish.

Whilst the majority of serials on this list are indeed TV serials, I challenge any assumption that the page is only for TV, as that isn't the consensus given the evidence of the page's long standing content. Indeed, the overriding connection between the sections on this page seems to be BBC broadcasts and not the medium through which the broadcast is made. By limiting the lists to only those transmitted by the BBC, it keeps the "Other Stories" sections nice and short. The webcasts, TV specials, animations etc. sections are similar; only stuff transmitted by the BBC goes in, everything else is out (stage plays, comics, books, CDs of plays not transmitted on the BBC etc). "Primarily TV" is an argument for removing the entire "Other Stories" section (highly controversial, good luck with that!); it's not an argument for removing only the BBC Radio 7 serials from a list of radio plays whilst leaving the BBC Radio 2, BBC Radio 4 and BBC Radio 5 entries intact. Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 series and DWM

The current table for the 2010 series is incorrect - That DWM does not actually specify the writers of episodes 6,7,10,11 and the two part finale - it names all the writers, yes - but those episodes listed do not get their writer specified. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Full quote - "Block 5 is two separate adventures episodes 6 and 10, produced by Tracie Simpson and directed by Jonny Cambell (lists his previous directing experience) Location shooting for block 5 took place in Croatia for a fortnight in December. The series has two further shooting blocks to complete this year, one [of] which is made up of episodes 7 and 11, and the other the two-part final that comprises Episodes 12 and 13" - no writers mentioned. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Edgepedia (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Elsewhere in the magazine, in the Steven Moffat interview, it does explicitly state that Steven Moffat has written the scripts for Episodes 12 and 13... Blaine Coughlan (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

yes - sorry forgot to check that. But wouldn't that need a different reference - as it's not the same section as the others 188.221.79.22 (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the deal with the flip-flopping between quite specific episode details apparently in Doctor Who Magazine, and claims that those details are 'unsourced'? The information seems too specific to have been 'unsourced', and the magazine would seem to be official. I do not have access to the magazine that is the alleged source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of DWM417 either, and am guided by what people have said on this page about what it contains. However, speculative episode details are available from a number of (unreliable) sources on the internet. See [9] and [10]! (Spoilers Ahoy!) Edgepedia (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible airing of Series 31/1/5/whatever

Due to the schedule of BBC3 reruns of dr who, I believe that the new series will start on March 27 (UK). 86.144.137.174 (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's original research, much as I personally appreciate it, we can't include it until it has a source! Tom walker (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who BLue Peter

I'm sure blue peter once did a dr who sketch, with matt baker playing the doctor and something to do with a granny having a black hole inside a vacuum cleaner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.90.16 (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial sketches or parodies don't belong at this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro77 is correct about it not belonging on this page. The page Doctor Who spoofs does not have any info about this sketch but it is where the item would go if you find any reliable sources describing it. MarnetteD | Talk 14:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor point: Series Five

Hope nobody minds —and I very rarely edit anything on the Who pages without consulting other users— but I've changed the description of the vampiric humanoids' dress from "Tudor" to "Renaissance". The Tudor period is a specifically English dynasty; Renaissance broadens this definition (at least, until we can verify when this particular episode is set). Absurdtrousers (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

New series episode articles

We currently have the following articles which currently redirect to the 2010 series:

However we have no source for these episode names. Not sure if to PROD these, or just put them on my watchlist Edgepedia (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Series Fnarg

I noticed yesterday that on 1 January 2010 the BBC uploaded the trailer for the new series and titled it Doctor Who: Series 5 Preview - BBC One. [11] Edgepedia (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This has already been mentioned here. We've still got conflicting reliable sources: that BBC source uses "Series 5", which is the one name that Steven Moffat describes as "a complete lie". I think that the incoming executive producer probably has a bit more "say" than whatever BBC employee put the title on that trailer. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the matter is still unclear, but I can't see this (late) reference to series 5 in the previous discussion. However, I'm sure we will know soon. Edgepedia (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the reference in the previous discussion (at the end, from Moogagot) was to a BBC America source (but talking about the same trailer). Either way, I agree that things should become clearer before the episodes air. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Next Doctor

This page looks alot better now that the Next Doctor has been added to the other specials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.186.173 (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is after all the correct place to have it 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Gaiman to write for Series Gorbl

[12]. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Infinite Quest and Dreamland

Is it really true that they're "not generally considered part of the series continuity"? I thought they were official episodes, only animated rather than live action. Rowena Black (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dreamland, at least, was listed on the BBC Doctor Who website alongside the other 2009 specials Etron81 (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Blue Peter Competition

It worth mentioning the Design a tardis competition for the 2010 series (or perhaps it would be better on the Doctor Who (2010 series) page). Winning design was announced today. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Would seem to be beyond the scope of this article. Perhaps at TARDIS and/or the 2010 series??--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Rumoured titles

Surely this section can be deleted? It's nothing but unsourced original research - not a single referenc eto back it up. NP Chilla (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it probably should be deleted. DonQuixote (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

look here: http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/a-closer-look-at-series-5-1518.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.38.5 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The link at the above "look here" comment shows that Series 5's 8th and 9th episodes are both called "Cold Blood", but the "spoiler within the spoiler" at the following link shows that episode 8 is called "The Ground Beneath Their Feet", while episode 9 is called "Cold Blood". These are characterized as "rumors", however, at the same link: http://gallifreynewsbase.blogspot.com/2010/02/2010-characters-revealed.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.215.59 (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither of these are reliable sources. There are many rumours, some contradictory.Edgepedia (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

April 3rd?

The trailer states "Easter 2010", nothing is said about a day. Easter is a weekend long holiday stretching from Good Friday through to Easter Monday, four possible days to choose from. Although it is likely that Saturday is the target day, we cannot assume that they will choose this day, as episodes have aired on days other than that, especially over national holidays. Unless some has a RELIABLE source for the 4th, we must use "Easter 2010" until further information is released by the BBC. magnius (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There are reports that the TV broadcast version of the trailer now states 3 April - living in the US I can't verify - can someone in the UK? This youtube clip includes the date, but is not really a realiable source Etron81 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's 'recording' is going round the websites, and there's a photo here. But the BBC Website is still saying Easter at the end of the trailer on the website and in the text [13]. If they had planned to release the date they surely would have updated the website? I don't think either of those qualify as a reliable source, even if they showed the wrong version as the date could change. What does everyone else think? Edgepedia (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As easily as such things are faked these days, I wouldn't give a video made of what's on someone's TV much credence at all, especially given what's on the BBC website. The trouble is, we know the pattern has been to run the first episode of the new season on Easter Saturday, so April 3 makes sense, but it seems fishy to me: it's not showing up on the BBC video channel on YouTube. Even if, by some chance, it is correct, Easter still covers it, so why take the chance? The BBC is the definitive source, and until they make an official announcement, I think Easter should stand. --Drmargi (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The image can be faked, the voiceover, well, you would need to be really professional to do that this that realistically. Hektor (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but you can't source the voiceover. Tangental question: does the BBC ordinarily format the date that way? (April 3rd v. April 3) --Drmargi (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I wondered about the date format, (it says 3rd April BTW, with no year, the 'offical' version says Easter 2010). However, surely you can source the voiceover, same as you can a commentary. I didn't notice the voiceover, I'm thinking they broadcast that version by mistake. However, if it's not offical the date can be changed. Edgepedia (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the many edits and what I saw got muddled. But it was both the absence of the year and the use of 3rd, which is incorrect in most uses, that seemed off to me. Regardless, it's one more reason to question the reliability of the video and go with the BBC. Do we have enough consensus to but a hidden note on in the date box? --Drmargi (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Doctor Who Online a reliable source? On their news page [14] search for "New Series Trailer date mystery", it says they have contacted BBC and apparently no TX date as been confirmed. Edgepedia (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

With no new news I've updated the Doctor_Who_(2010_series)#Trailers article. I'm guessing that everyone at the BBC is assuming that it's going to be the Saturday, but the shedules still have to be agreed. Edgepedia (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

US Broadcast

Just for the record, BBC America announced yesterday (and it can be sourced) that the US will get the new series beginning on April 17. I'm not sure how that's going to affect what's going on here, but given the constant changes here and in the main article, I thought a heads up was in order. --Drmargi (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well before the 17th the bbc can air the series on either saturday the 3rd or saturday the 10th so its not really gonna affect anything much. Pro66 (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's always nice to do something helpful, and have someone treat you like you're stupid in response, particularly someone who hasn't a clue how to capitalize a proper noun. I was referring to the problem of the constant date changes being discussed in this thread, that the BBC has yet to confirm an air date, and the possibility the BBCA date might crop up. Right now, it's the only firm air date around, and could legitimately be added as the known premiere date, given you can only assume the BBC will run the episode before BBC America. --Drmargi (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a reference in the article that the series to return to BBC One at Easter [15] which is going to be before 17 April. What we don't have is a reiable source for the exact date. Edgepedia (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Drmargi I didnt mean to treat you like you are stupid at all i'm acutally suprised you feel that way but anyway i was stating that if bbc america is airing on the 17th then the bbc are very likely to air it on ethier the two dates i mentioned plus i dont think bbc america air date will affect much as people on here will be waiting for the bbc website to confirm the uk air date and they will revert anyone who put in a date before its confirmed. p.s. on a side note spelling and grammer dont matter when it comes to talk pages Pro66 (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Series numbering

Forgive me if this has been discussed before, but the problem seems to me to be the the making of a list via the use of information that can be changed at whim. That doesn't make sense to me. Lists are sequentially-ordered, and it already to me looks bad that we've got 2 series ones, another would just be stupid.

There is a solution. Just number them sequentially, then use descriptive text and where necessary, page redirects, to point to the correct item or page in a sequentially-ordered list.

So you would have : "The first series of Doctor Who" or similar wording, leading all the way up to the thirty-first (or whatever) series of Doctor Who, with explanatory text about what the BBC or whoever decides to actually call it. It might also be useful to use the words rather than numbers to distinguish the list from the elements making it up.

This is consistent, extensible, list-like, factually accurate, will always be under our control and seamlessly incorporates both actual and potential problems with however series are described in the future. (what if they stop using numbers and use series names, for example!) What's not to like? :) Etrigan (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The last discussion is in the talk archive and can be found at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials/Archive 9#Series One or Five.3F. My view of the situation is that we can't just label the series what we want just because it's logical, we have to label them what reliable sources call them. WP:COMMONNAME is the policy to follow. For example the episodes shown in 2008 are clearly numbered 4 in some way - look at the BBC Website or the DVD cover for the box set. I understand the Seasons and the numbering system from the classic series are taken from various books. The BBC have been unclear as to how they are going to market the series currently in production, the Doctor Who magazine have said series one but some fairly recent publicity [16] has referred to it as series five. Edgepedia (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we can label them logically. For example, look at List_of_Babylon_5_episodes - the series there were never numbered by the producers, but named; but it's logical to number them to give an easy to understand sequential order.

I'm not sure how a point about WP:COMMONNAME can be made. An obvious counter is "Do you mean new series 3 or old series 3?" - "Series 3" is not itself enough information to uniquely identify what's being talked about especially to those not in the know. From that, I'm pretty settled in my own mind that we could settle this once and for all on this basis of WP:IGNORE by framing the complexity inside a coherent structure.

I'm not a fan of invoking WP:IGNORE. And I think that if the upcoming series is generally referred to as "Series 5" then we've avoided the bullet. But I think rather than relying on that, we could easily restructure to be more listlike by creating a structure round varying information. That's not [WP:OR]].

In a nutshell: "How it is ordered" is a different issue from "What people call it". The latter category, in a list, needs to be bound by the first. Providing an independent method for the former seamlessly incorporates any variation of the latter. Etrigan (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No other thoughts on this? Etrigan (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm personally of the opinion we should label the 2005 series as Season 27, and have continuous numbering; both Moffat and Davies were emphatic that the new series is a continuation, although Davies hasn't gone on record saying that S2005 should be called "series 27". Sceptre ^(talk) 19:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Problem could be solved. While BBC used the production code series 1 during filming the episodes, Steven Moffat called the 2010 series in DWM, issue 418: "series 31". If this will be confirmed by BBC, the series 27, 28... numbering should be continued during the Davies years.--84.142.216.102 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doctor-Who-5-1-DVD/dp/B00336G1WE/ref=amb_link_91343707_5?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=auto-sparkle&pf_rd_r=0ZAE51PJCB9ZVWTAK8KQ&pf_rd_t=301&pf_rd_p=128292727&pf_rd_i=Doctor%20Who%20Series%205. This is a link to pre-order the first DVD of the series. It's being sold as Series 5: Volume 1. I think that confirmation, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.204.92 (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's not that clear, it could be what Amazon are calling. But what about this? Edgepedia (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Series 5? This BBC page seems to list is as series 5,[17] with the air date being confirmed as April 3. Time to apply the changes? magnius (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The BBC website has called Series 5 the New Series --Yeepsi 20:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeepsi (talk • contribs)

See ongoing discussion here [18] Tphi (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected status?

Can we get semi-protected status on this article to stop the constant uncited edits by IP-only users? I can't find anything about how an article qualifies for it. Vermoskitten (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You will need to make your request here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. You may not have much luck because the unsourced edits have actually dropped off a bit in the last few days. We do have a number of eyes on this page but I agree that it is annoying to have to deal with this. Eventually April 3rd - er I mean Easter - er I mean April 4th - well at least by April 17th (the start of the US airings) we will know one way or the other and the constant unsourced editing will drop off. Until next year anyway. :-) MarnetteD | Talk 23:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Story Numbering

Moved out of series numbering section

In the List of Dr Who Serials, there is a problem with sequential numbering, which though very useful, is different from numbering on some recent CDs that I purchased, and may cause some confusion, ex: Battlefield is story No 156 and Survival is Story No 159, both differing from the sequential numbering, a possible cause for future confusion This problem only occurs in the latest episodes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.133.181 (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The series numbering used is based on Doctor Magazine etc calling Planet of the Dead the 200th story. Other numbering systems exist. It's explained in the fifth paragraph of the article; there was sone discussion about this at the time. Edgepedia (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.47.33.122, 30 March 2010

82.47.33.122 (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you let us know what you want changed in the form please change X to Y, (with reliable sources), and then remove the < ! -- and -- > lines above. Edgepedia (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Broadcast dates update

Latest DWM (420) confirms broadcast dates for episodes 3-5 as 17 April, 24 April and 1 May. (pages 10 and 12) Can someone please update this 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Episode titles

Episodes 9-11. a) what's the source for these (all are unsourced) - if no source please delete. b) if there is a source, please fix the links of episodes 9 and 11 (neither go to anything related to Doctor Who) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

hmm - appears to have gone already. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

DWM as source for air dates

How do we know they're not just making them up? The only official source is the BBC, and it seems surprising to me (and, importantly, lacking in any evidence) that the BBC releases official airdates to DWM without publicising them elsewhere, even on its own website. While they're a good source in general, I can see no evidence that they are qualified to be a source (considering there can be only one primary source!) for airdates. Etrigan (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

DWM rarely gets the big air dates first; for example, "The Eleventh Hour"'s airdate was released by press release a full week before DWM 420's publication. However, I would suspect that they do get exclusives first; the production team openly contribute to the magazine, and the magazine is officially sanctioned and sometimes advertised by the BBC. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

DWM is a reliable, it's offical, it's been running for nearly 31 years now and I don't see how it could lie. As for 'there can be only one primary source', I'm not quite sure what that has to do with this. But in general, I'm saying it's reliable. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If it helps - the date for the first part is now on the BBC press office as well 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 213.106.82.44, 8 April 2010

213.106.82.44 (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you let us know what your request is? Put it somewhere on this section. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor - Series 1/Series 5/Series 31

The new series (i.e. 2010 series) should be called Series 1, as the production codes are 1.1 (i.e. Series 1, Ep 1), 1.2, 1.3, etc

From Doctor_Who_(2010_series)#Production:

"The March edition of Doctor Who Magazine, referring to this as Series Thirty-One, confirmed production codes in the range 1.1 to 1.13."

Also, the head writer Steven Moffat calls the series "Series 1". --Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 14:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The official website has it as 'Series 5': http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rs69w Shokuwarrior (talk • contribs) 18:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's also down as "Series 5" on iplayer, and the DVD release 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually Steven Moffat likes to call Series 1/5/31 'Series Fnrag' (in a interview in one of the recent DWMs). Maybe wait until the BBC rest on a number (if they do). --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What anyone calls it should be irrelevant for Wikipedia, except as a comment. I can call that animal over there a wombat, but it doesn't matter a damn if the rest of the world knows it's a cat. All that's necessary is a note "And Etrigan calls it a wombat". What we should be doing is dealing in issues of fact: and logical numbering: the first series, the second, the twenty-fourth, the thirtieth - are facts. What someone else calls them is information to be attached to those facts. Etrigan (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Moffat called it "Series Fnarg" in reference to the numbering controversy (1/5/31), for what it's worth. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it should be left as "2010 series" to avoid this confusion. --Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 11:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not necessarily neatly extendible to cover all of them, considering series/seasons have been known to cross year boundaries. Etrigan (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Usually Doctor Who serials don't cross years. (with the exception of last year, Series 4 finished on Jan 1, 2010). "2010 series" is usable. --Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 15:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The BBC's publication - the Radio Times - refers to it as Series 5. Also, I think each episode is supposed to have a unique code - there should not be two episodes both using the code 1.1, 1.2...as there currently are under this code-scheme. Wdcf (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

list of the doctor who the 11th doctor episodes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1.the 11th hour. atraxi and prisiner zero. 2.the beast below. smilers 3.victory of the daleks. daleks 4.time of the angels p1. weeping angells 5.flesh and stone p2. weeping angells 6.vampires in vence.vampires. 7.amy's choise. TBA 8.cold blood p1. TBA 9.cold blood p2. TBA 10.jenny reterns. TBA 11.time to robe. robots 12.the 4 doctors p1. sontarans,cybermen and daleks 13.the 4 doctors p2. sontarans,cybermen and daleks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star wars the clone wars (talk • contribs) 18:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what this is for exactly, but I think episode titles for 8-13 are probably going to be wrong once their titles have been confirmed and they're unsourced too, so... --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to pay attention to this as the user is a vandal only account. I would recommend removing this if others are so inclined. MarnetteD | Talk 22:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Etrigan (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amy in series 6

Not having the magazine in question I can't check this, but it is worth noting how Amy's role in series 6 has been confirmed. Ie., for Matt Smith we have confirmation that he will return for every episode. Is Amy defined in the same way? If we know she is in the entire series the sentence should be changed to clarify both her and Matt are signed up for every episode. U-Mos (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Xmas Special 2010

It's listed as Xmas day without citation. I've changed it to TBA, in line with our current practise of not quoting a broadcast date unless it can be backed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etrigan (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Interactive episodes

There are mutipel articels about 4 interavtive doctor who episodes that are comming up. I didn't wanted to edit the articel becuse i didn't knew where to put them. link Article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.210.4 (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It has its own article Doctor Who: The Adventure Games. DonQuixote (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

True, but shouldn't they be listed in the "Other Stories" section like Attack of the Graske? Etron81 (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want, you can include a "videogame" section which includes all the Doctor Who/Dalek videogames. DonQuixote (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thing is these are being explicitly marketed as canon, and as part of the current series. "There aren't 13 episodes... there are 17... everything you see... is part of the Doctor Who universe." [19] I think these should be listed underneath the 2010 series episodes, or at least in the section with attack of the graske, music of sphere, dreamland etc. to tie in with them being "interactive episodes". U-Mos (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Etrigan (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

We could have a separate "Interactive episodes" section in the "Other Stories" section covering The Adventure Games and Attack of the Graske Etron81 (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the strength and clarity of that quote above, to do other than put them in (a subsection?) of this year's series would seem to me to doing something for our own convenience rather than following clearly stated fact. That's a bit wrong. Etrigan (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and stick it on the page. We'll se where it goes from there. U-Mos (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Attack of the Graske should be here since it's an interactive episode and was broadcast on a Digital broadcast service. The Adventure Games arn't, they are video game. So, the Adventure Games should not be listed here. Can we have it removed please? --VitasV (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

To say it's not an interactive episode is literally going against a source. Where does an interactive episode start and a video game begin? Why does it matter that attack of the graske was on tv? It would still be listed if it had been online-only. This is not just some random video game with the Doctor in it, it is an official part of the series. Even if the table is decided against, the adventure games should not be ignored in the article. There should be a mention and link somewhere. U-Mos (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

They could be simply be mentioned in the summary accompanied under the series 5 heading. There are other official Doctor Who video games meaning they should also be added. --VitasV (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable

This statement[20] doesn't seem to be particularly interesting/noteworthy. Delete?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary I realised this myself the other day and considered it rather noteworthy myself. Wdcf (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Hungry Earth Vs Amy's Choice as Ep8

We seem to have a small problem. "Amy's Choice" is currently listed as Ep8, but SFX magazine, a generally reliable source, states that Ep8 is "The Hungry Earth" (currently a matter of debate as Ep9) [21]. Also says that it is part 1 or 2, making 8 and 9 the two-parter, not 9-10. SFX could have made a mistake, so I won't make any changes just yet, but thought I should throw it out there for discussion :/ magnius (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Gallifrey Base say the same thing, Hungry Earth is Ep8 [22]. magnius (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Since we're getting conflicting information from sources normally considered reliable, trim back to the running order and titles announced by the BBC. This article will be around for many decades, so we can afford to wait a few more weeks if that's what is needed to get it right. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As TR-BT pointed out here, Amy's Choice is episode 7. DonQuixote (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, again I apologise for getting mixed up. magnius (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cold Blood

Is uncited. Do we have a ref? Or is this an edit that's slipped thru? Etrigan (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Has a source over at Doctor Who (series 5), I'll copy it over. magnius (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Adventure Games shouldn't be here

The Adventure Games shouldn't be on here. They are computer games, not serials. Just because they are available for free doesn't mean they should be on here. First episode of Tales of Monkey Island was free at one point and isn't considered a serial. If they are on here, then so should Dalek Attack, Top Trumps, the Warlord and others be on here. --VitasV (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Restored. Please wait to see if there is consensus for your position. --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In what way is Tales of Monkey Island not a serial? That is an arbitrary comparison, as Monkey Island is not connected to a tv series in any way. To dismiss them as merely a computer game spin-off is in explicit contradiction to official sources. It is different to the others because it is specifically tied to the current series, sourced as canon to the tv series, not distributed or marketed as a video game, and made by the team behind the tv series. The others you mentioned are not. U-Mos (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but this is a VIDEO GAME. It wont be broadcasted nor follow one path. Like a game book it will have multiple choices in doing things yet of course in the end have a or one successful outcome. There was a discussion similar on the Doctor Who story chronology talk page about Doctor Who video games and game books. This article here is that listing only those that have been broadcasted on televison or radio. That if we were to include these episodes because they feature full cast of actors, then this should be said the same with Destiny of the Doctors as that had full cast of actors. And just to say if this is to be kept on this page which I don't agree, it should be kept under the Other Stories section. --VitasV (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am all for these games being listed. They are considered to be genuine episodes by Piers Wenger [23] who goes so far as to say that there are really 17 episodes in series 5. magnius (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well then should we also include on here Destiny of the Doctors? It was released when nothing else was on, features full cast and even though a video game is official Doctor Who story. Also like Infinite Quest and Dreamworld which were also broadcasted or more shown during the time of their corresponding series yet are put under other stories, can we at least have The Adventure Games listed under Other stories? --VitasV (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Infinte Quest and Dreamland did used to be listed as "specials" after their respective series, and I would be in favour of putting them back there. But nevertheless they have not been stated as in-universe as The Adventure Games have. Destiny of Doctors, the difference you are failing to grasp, is a computer game and only that. It was not marketed as part of the TV series, or as new "interactive episodes", but just as a computer game. It was licensed by the beeb and nothing else. As an official part of the show's narrative, and an official extension of series 5, the adventure games should be listed here. U-Mos (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The only way the Adventure Games should be listed is in a special section at the end of the article. Putting them between the real seasons breaks up the flow. Whatever their canon status, they aren't television episodes.Tom walker (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright look, I'm happy for them to maybe include it on here as long as they're under the other stories section cause they arn't broadcasted on television nor are they television episodes. Also that in their notes that they should clearly state that they are video games. --VitasV (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

From the description given in the latest Doctor Who Confidential, on BBC One on April 24, there adventures have more extensive cut-scene content than is usual, and they feature a script with perhaps a few extras. So they may well be closer to the usual broadcast dramas that we're used to than to traditional adventures like Tomb Raider. I'm in favor of a "wait and see" approach on inclusion here, but for the time being we should certainly mention the games as part of the production of the new series. At the very least they are tie-ins intended to promote the new series and extend its reach. Tasty monster (=TS ) 02:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Simply mentioned but not listed on here for now is alright. Just to say scripted and has cut-scenes, so does Destiny of the Doctors. Also another thing to soon discuss once the first episode is released, should we create articles for each story since being as it's Doctor Who, might bring a bit of notability to the matter. --VitasV (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Attack of the Graske is already in "other stories" - so don't see what the problem is. If you really want, you could have a different section for the video games mentioned (Like the "Other stories" section). As the BBC is making a note of these as special extras (and in confidential as basically 4 extra episodes) they should definitely be somewhere in the article - like other extras (Infinite Quest/ Dreamland/ CIN specials etc) already are. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The overriding consensus for this page thus far has been 1) Broadcast by the BBC; 2) A story; 3) The title "Doctor Who". If it fits all three of these (Is it a story, does it have a beginning, a middle and an end? Is it broadcast by the BBC, is it available on the BBC website for free for UK licence fee payers?), then yes, it should go into Other Stories (perhaps merge with Webcasts, but Webcasts might need to be renamed?). Otherwise no, perhaps it should go into Doctor Who merchandise. Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that to be an accurate summation of the consensus at all. Etrigan (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that consensus implies that even the books should be added here. But look for now, I'll put it under the other stories section. --VitasV (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh? When have the novels ever been broadcast by the BBC? Binabik80 (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think the consensus is for that either. And no, I don't think it implies what you think it does about the books.Etrigan (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The latest DWm confirms that they are being seen as 4 extra episodes (The quote being something like "This year there are 17 episodes, but 4 are interactive") I think we have to go with that. It doesn't imply anything about any other novel/ game or whatever else. These are being treated in this way by this production team - Does not mean that other things were treated that way, or should be treated that way. So adventure games - definitely (because of the way they are being dealt with by the production team) - other games/ novels - NO. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So can we at least move them down to other stories since clearly they arn't broadcasted on televison? --VitasV (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Preservation Status / DVD Release

What are your opinions on whether the list should note which episodes are missing or intact and if it has been released on DVD? The Doctor Who DVD releases list shows only releases. I'm thinking that a complete list of all episodes noting preservation status and DVD release would be a great idea and more convenient than cross checking separate lists. A "DVD release" column with "Y" or "N" and a "Preservation status" column with "C" (complete) "I" (Incomplete) and "M" (Missing) would be good and an asterisk for episodes in B&W only. If this has already been discussed forgive me for bringing it up again. --T1980 (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The missing episodes are already noted in the "Episodes" column Etron81 (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Most consecutive episodes

I'm wondering how Stargate could have the record at 217 episodes when Doctor Who reached that point in the Troughton era. 71.190.81.108 (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Are the numbers of series 5 correct?

I was looking for the epsiodenumbers for the new series five and saw that it was numbered 201 and so on... This is strange because that was the numbering of the alst episodes of last years specials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.251.28.20 (talk • contribs)

Someone must have changed them recently. Reverting them back... DonQuixote (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

They have been changed back to 1.x Ruud (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

According to rev 361034287 (07:25, 9 May 2010) the 1.x numbers are correct 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuudAlthuizen (talk • contribs)

Titles TBA : Episode 11 (AKA The Lodger), Episode 12 (AKA The Pandorica Opens), Episode 13 (AKA The Big Bang). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lijh (talk • contribs)

Thanks for that. A reliable source would be even more helpful. DonQuixote (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Episode Titles Inconsistent

Does anyone know why some episode titles are in italics and some are in double quotes? Is there a reason? According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, all episode names should be in double quotes. I just didn't want to go through the tedious process of changing them all if there is an overriding reason that would require undoing all that work.

I think it is due to the relaunch of the program. The ones in italic are from the old series, and the double quotes episodes are from the relaunched series. It seems to be the only explanation, that or that someone was too stupid to do it properly when they made the page. Dr. J (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the titles in italics are mutli-part serials whose individual episodes do not have their own names, and the ones in quotes are episodes that have their own titles. The new series switched to an episodic rather than serial format. Vermoskitten (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct - please also see this discussion on the Doctor Who page Etron81 (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So erm, why is "The Five Doctors" in italics? It was very much a single episode I believe. U-Mos (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I may have the specifics of this somewhat wrong but when the move to quote marks occurred several years ago there was a determination that anything longer than 90 minutes was considered a TV film and, thus, was eligible for italics. As I say this was quite some time ago so I would not know exactly where to send you for this discussion but different parts of it were covered at both the television and Doctor Who projects so if some other editor can provide the links please feel free to add them. MarnetteD | Talk 21:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Dates of Series 5 Episodes

As seen in Flesh and Stone, the bang that makes cracks in time happen on the 26th June 2010. If the episodes continue to be weekly without the usual interruption of the Euro-vision Song Contest, then that is the date of the final episode. Or, if we do have an interruption, it will be the date of the first part of that two part episode. They obviously made it this tie so that, as usual with Doctor Who, they make it so that the present day episode happens on the same day the episode is broadcast. I think that this confirms the dates of the last two episodes (because Euro-vision is certain to interrupt) and we should put the dates into the page. What does everyone else think of this? -- Dr. J Talk 09:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As you say, it does depend on Eurovision (which according to the wiki page is 29 May) so I would be wary of adding dates based on assumptions when it can change. Also, you need to look out for June 12 (first sat of the world cup) - on that day, there is also qualifying for the Canadian Grand Prix which will be at 6pm (British Time) - and with the world cup game with England on later (7:30pm British Time) Doctor Who may not be broadcast on that date. So with two possible delays, I don't think filling in the dates is a good idea. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That is alll WP:OR. Right now we have got a source for ep12 on June 19. It doesn't take a genius to work out the three episodes without sources will air on the 5th, 12th and 26th but without a source it simply cannot be added! U-Mos (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't think it's ever happened with Doctor Who to my knowledge, you do have to allow for the possibility that they may delay an episode to a Sunday or something, such is scheduling. magnius (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(Re:UMOS)Which is precisely what I was saying - at the time we didn't have the dates for the last two episodes - I was saying that you shouldn't put them in in case of a delay. Now we know those - though we still don't know for sure about episode 11 - and as i said, there may well be a delay then due to other BBC coverage (the F1 qualifying would clash with the current standard time running from 6:00-7:00 BST) so I think it is right to wait and see. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I was agreeing with you :) U-Mos (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Why such incoherent presentation?

I think it should be all set out the same if you have a table going down. Thus, you either, delete the first doctors 'titles of episodes' or add them for the rest. Or it isn't coherent and very annoying if you wanted to know the titles names for each of the 4 episodes for instance. 86.180.92.59 (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

THe rest don't have titles, other than episode 1, episode 2, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - as explained in a note (b) - stories up to and Including "The Gunfighters" had an individual on-screen title for each episode. From from "The Savages" onwards [upto the end of the 1989 series], the serials had an overall title, and the episodes in them when simply numbered (1,2 etc) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Father Who?" is not the title of the Christmas special

I'm putting this here for reference. A couple of people have added "Father Who?" as the title for the 2010 Christmas special, on the basis of this tweet from Lizo Mzimba, the BBC's entertainment correspondent. Now that probably doesn't meet WP:V and the title is not confirmed in the BBC press release or in any of the media reports about the casting of the guest stars. Regardless, that point is now moot as Lizo has since clarified that the title is still to be announced in this tweet and this one. If anyone tries to add the title again, you can point them here so they can sure there's no basis for adding it. Maccy69 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Adventure Games as part of series five

Since the original discussion about this has been archived, I'm adding this for reference for anyone who wants to move the Adventure Games section. The original discussion about this is here and the consensus was to place the Adventure Games in the series five section on the basis of what the production team have said about them. If you want to change the consensus, you should read the original discussion and then put your arguments forward here. Thanks. Maccy69 (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer them to be in their own section of the 'Other Stories' section. Here is how I see the page: the main part is a list of TV serials, by Doctor. These are the episodes that have story numbers, will be included in the episode count by the BBC and publications such as DWM, etc. After that is anything else that isn't a TV serial, even other TV broadcasts such as Dreamland. While PR hyperbole might like to advertise them as something else, the games aren't part of the TV serials the main part of the list is for, and similar "interactive episodes" (such as Attack of the Graske) are in Other Stories already. They stick out like a sore thumb to me. Anyone else agree? Tphi (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer them in a seperate section in the 'Other Stories' section - maybe an "Interactive Episode" section with Attack of the Graske? Etron81 (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. They don't belong in the main body - this is a 47-year long list of televised episodes only. As someone else said they stick out like a sore thumb and look (and are) completely out of place. They belong in other stories, possibly in a new section for them. Tom walker (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed too, best moved to an "Interactive episode" or "Interactive media" section. magnius (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, recent consensus above seems to suggest moving to the 'Other Stories' section - if there's anyone else who'd like to wade in to the debate, I'll leave this another day or so and then make the change. Tphi (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think even the old consensus suggested that. After reading the old discussion I don't see any consensus that this belongs in the Series 5 section. Having it in 'Other Stories' would be much preferable. The fact is these are not and never could be televised episodes. They are video games plain and simple. How the BBC chooses to promote them cannot change that. Listing it as part of Series 5 is incredibly misleading. --DocNox (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Tphi (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who Online

Does Doctor Who Online count as a reliable source because it is a BBC website and it is the first place for new Doctor Who news and reviews and stuff? BionicMK (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho is a realisble source and the official BBC site. Doctor Who Online is not a BBC site, and I will leave it to others to judge if it is a realiable source (I suspect not though) Etron81 (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sereis 5 DVD - between episode scenes

Link to Digital Spy story

The DVD/BD release of Series 5 will include specially shot scenes in the TARDIS taking place bewteen episodes. Can we add a mention of these to the list, and where would we add them? Etron81 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please realise that there is no rush to add these to this article. First we would need to see them to gain some context. If they are stand alone scenes like the Children in need special and "Time Crash" then they would get separate entries. If, on the other hand, they are part of the stories that come just before or after them they would probably only rate a footnote on this page and a slightly more detailed mention in the various articles for season five stories. One other thought is that they may be like the TARDISODES in which case they could have their own article with, again, a footnote on this page. I know that we all love to get info in these articles as fast as possible but a little wait never hurts. It allows us to be more accurate and maybe even avoid edit wars (well one can hope you know :->). MarnetteD | Talk 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I realise there's no rush to add these - I just wanted to start discussion before anyone tries to! Etron81 (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And I should have said thanks for doing so in my reply. Many apologies. Thanks also for being vigilant in this and on many other Dr Who wikiarticles. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith

Should The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith (and possibly Death of the Doctor) deserve a spot on this page? I believe it is a unique case in being the only time the character of the Doctor has appeared in an official capacity outside of the parent program. Making it pretty much a Doctor Who serial in everything but name. I believe putting it under 'Other Stories' would be very helpful to people coming to this page looking for a full list of all the Doctor's adventures. I mean, is there any other official television appearance of the Doctor that isn't listed here somewhere? --DocNox (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Wingman868, 11 August 2010

I want to edit this page because I know something about the christmas special episode and want to write what it is called and what the code is. So please accept my request! Thank You!!!

wingman868 (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Say what you want to change into what with the appropriate references and an established user will add it to the page. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Split series

I've re-named the 2011 series section back to just that, rather than "Series 6 & 7" as we don't really know what it's being produced/marketed as just yet. While it's being filmed in one sitting, its unclear what the BBC will actually brand the two halves of the new episodes as.

From the Guardian article: "next year's Doctor Who would run as two separate series," suggests it'll be branded as two independent entities, as does "So we are going to make it two series" and "The wrong expression would be to say we are splitting it in two. We are making it two separate series." Moffat does actually refer to it elsewhere as a split, so he is contradicting himself - it'll be interesting to see how much of this is PR talk since 'two series' for next year sounds more exciting than one - (the recent Adventure Games as episodes discussion springs to mind, after Piers Wenger dubbed them 'actual episodes').

Because we then have "The new series of Doctor Who will be split into two" ... "Next year's 13-part series, the sixth since Doctor Who returned in 2005, will run for seven episodes and then return in the autumn for another six" and "Moffat said the Easter "mid-season finale" would be a "game-changing cliffhanger"," which clearly talk of a single 13-part series merely shown in two parts, especially with the mention of a 'mid-season' finale.

Indeed, the official BBC press release is a lot more clear and also seems to suggest one series, shown in two blocks: "the transmission of the next series of Doctor Who, in 2011, will be split into two blocks, transmitting in spring and autumn". I think we should refrain from dubbing the 2011 episodes one series or two until we hear more. - Tphi (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this source reliable?

This link implies Series 6 will not feature Daleks, but I'm unsure as to whether either Digital Spy or their mixed message therein may be trusted to that end. What do others think? 94.10.219.76 (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a poor reference for inclusion. They don't have a story yet, but they're not finished yet. So saying there won't be one is speculation. There might be one, there might not be one, we don't know yet. Don't see a need to include that. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I guessed as much. Thanks. 94.10.219.76 (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Darvill in Series Six

I would just like to make it perfectly clear that Arthur Darvill is most definitely reprising his role for Series Six as he is currently filming. ^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPatrickSpiller (talk • contribs) 09:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I see photos showing Arthur Darvill on set. I see nothing about which role he is playing or am I missing something? Edgepedia (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide some verifiable source. Set pictures do not qualify as such; we can't tell what Arthur Darvill is doing there, and they are still shooting the Christmas Special. Filming for Series 6 doesn't start until October. — Edokter • Talk • 10:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong, filming for the christmas special completed way back in August. They are currently filming Neil Gaiman's episode, having filmed Mark Gatiss' already. Both episodes directed by Richard Clark. I don't where you got this filming doesn't start until October from, because it started like a week or two ago! And trust me in most of those pictures, Arthur is filming. Also Steven Moffat in the latest issue of DWM mentions stuff involving Rory for Series Six. --DrPatrickSpiller (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please quote some of his 'stuff'; a mere picture does not provide any proof. — Edokter • Talk • 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In the production notes for Issue 426, Moffat mentions: "The calamitous and frankly shocking events at the climax of Episode 7 will still be ringing in your ears when Doctor Who returns in the Autumn for a futher six episodes. Oh, yes, feel our cruelty - you will see the Doctor's life change forever, you will gasp in astonishment at the true nature of his relationship with Amy Pond, and you will cry out in horror as Rory Williams stumbles to the brink of a tragic mistake..." [24] - Director's Twitter account just to prove that they're filming Series Six now.--DrPatrickSpiller (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

A question for either the editor who added the note or for anyone else that can clarify it for me. The note for The Planet of the Daleks reads "the colour has been replaced using colourisation methods and the original colour information found within a black and white copy". Now I have seen the the combining of the PAL black and white tapes with the NTSC colour tapes as in Terror of the Autons and The Daemons. I have never heard or read of "finding colour elements found within a black and white copy". I was under the impression that they had colourised episode three using elements from the other five episodes. It has been awhile since I saw that info so even that may be a mistake. In any event the I think that the note is a bit confusing so if any of you can find a way to make it a bit clearer it would be appreciated. Please feel free to add your info here on the talk page first so that we can combine info to improve the footnote. My thanks ahead of time to anyone that can help with this. MarnetteD | Talk 21:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - it's from an extra on the DVD - apparently because the thing was in colour then transferred to B+W, they can tell from the B+W what the colour was (or something like that) It's a different form of colour recovery to earlier ones (hence why it was in B+W until the DVD, as ooposed to earlier ones where they managed to do the restoration earlier) 212.20.248.35 (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The color comes from chroma dots that were recorded on the B/W film telerecordings Etron81 (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the replies. Your info is quite interesting and I oviously did not pay close enough attention when I was watching the extras on the DVD. I'll have to get it off the shelf and fix that. Thanks again for taking the time to reply and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

A well-meaning person added the Bernice Summerfield "Dead and Buried" webcast to the Other Stories section. It's a great webcast, but it's not suitable for inclusion on this page.

Being Bold, I have added a "Criteria for Inclusion" box to the top of this page, which currently reads:

For a serial to be listed on this article page, there are two criteria, both of which must be met:

1. Was it broadcast under the name "Doctor Who"? (spin-offs such as Sarah Jane Adventures are not included)

2. Was it broadcast by the BBC? (an audio play must have been broadcast on a BBC radio station or streamed from a BBC website to be included; a webcast must have appeared on a BBC website)

I hope other editors agree and find this useful. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Series Six table

Is everything in this table sourced? I don't have time at the moment to check through, but do we have sources for the producer of these episodes, or that Mark Gatiss is the writer of 2.4? Edgepedia (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Series six filming

How is it more accurate to state something that is not true? Filming in the US for Doctor Who took place for the making of "Daleks in Manhatten". This is quite clearly stated the DVD commentary for "Gridlock" on the DVD release of season three. Indeed our article for "DiM" mentions this fact here Daleks_in_Manhattan#Production. Far be it from me to try and not mislead readers of our articles but to claim in an edit summary that it is more accurate to have a sentence stating that Dr Who is filming in the US for the first time in season 6 is disingenuous at best. Adding the term "principal photography" clears up the confusion for this statement to any readers that come across it. If someone has a better description then that would improve the article even more but to leave the sentence in it current form is to give readers false information. MarnetteD | Talk 16:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This was posted before I had a chance to see the new edit by Edokter. I am quite happy with the new wording as it is even clearer to the readers than mine was. Thank you for the improvement. MarnetteD | Talk 16:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How are we handling the fact Steven Moffat is referring to the second half of the split as Series 7? Is that considered definitive, or is the plan to wait and see whether the BBC ends up branding it Series 6.5? 68.146.64.9 (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Additions

I have added three items to this list: the two Meanwhile in the TARDIS mini-episodes were separate productions, not "deleted scenes" or anything like that (if you need a reference, see Doctor Who Magazine #427, pg. 10). I created a "DVD/Blu-ray exclusive" section for them. There will likely be more in the future. I also added an entry for the Amy's History Hunt game because it is basically along the same lines as Attack of the Graske - original footage shot by the BBC for the BBC in which a character interacts with the viewer. I think all 3 additions are perfectly justified. I considered also adding the mini-adventure with the Eleventh Doctor featured in the 2010 Prom, however in the end I decided not to because, while it did incorporate specially-filmed scenes, most of it was performed live on stage by Matt Smith and thus is more appropriate, I think, for a list of Doctor Who Stage Performances alongside stuff like Seven Keys to Doomsday. Ditto the Doctor Who Live scenes from this fall. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Christmas

Does Christmas - as mentioned by the BBC in their news release about the final part of the The Adventure Games (Ref "The Vashta Nerada Return in our latest Adventure Game!". BBC. 2 December 2010.) - mean 25 December? Another editor and I have a disagreement. [25][26][27]. Edgepedia (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There's not much to it. A single event—the release of a game—clearly refers to a specific incident, not some extended period or progressive event. The natural understanding of 'Christmas'—in the context of a single day on which a single thing will happen—is 25 December. See also WP:DUCK--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Historically, for Doctor Who, Christmas has meant December 25. Particularly given it hasn't be released as a gift option, I tend to agree with the WP:DUCK principle. Drmargi (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCK applies to editors, not content (for that, see WP:COMMON). That said, "christmas" is too open to interpretation as this discussion has shown. We always waited for a reliable source to announce the exact date for the Christmas special, so why should it be different for the game? 25 December is not sourced, so I'm afraid "christmas" is the only verifiable option for now. — Edokter • Talk • 17:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This misuse of logic is really beginning to annoy me...

Applying WP:DUCK to a duck doesn't make it a Khaki Campbell. Similarly, "Christmas" doesn't mean "Christmas Day". DonQuixote (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll just let you eat your hat for Christmas dinner. That will be 'dinner on 25 December' by the way. But you already know that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. You're not the center of the universe. "Christmas" can mean both "Christmas Day" and "Christmastide", so, unless a reliable source says otherwise, the date can be from 24th December to 6th January. DonQuixote (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We'll just wait and see then, though I am firmly convinced that their Christmas release would not be at some much more arbitrary point, especially not some time in January. Some editors are simply allowing pedantry to overrule logic; it's not a major concern, so I'll play along. Your comment about the center of the universe is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Runaway Bride going to be 24th December till a last minute change moved it too 25th? Surely THAT shows that "Christmas" doesn't have to be 25th. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your sourceless tentative recollection of an unrelated statement surely clinches it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh look it wasn't the 25th after all. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what sources you're going by. There are no surprises that it did in fact air on 25 December.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Article title

I've been wondering for a while if "serial" is the correct word to use for this article. Serial refers to stories that are told over multiple instalments, like the original Doctor Who series largely was. The new series has a significant number (8 of 11) stories that are told in single episodes. Perhaps a more accurate title would be "List of Doctor Who stories"? Except that would imply other media... Hmmm maybe actually this is the best compromise; certainly "episodes" is no good. "List of Doctor Who TV stories"?

Thoughts? 189.216.66.232 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also the issue of "season" vs. "series", the former being the custom in the U.S. (& Canada?), the latter being custom in U.K. In the U.S., "series" typically means the entire run of the show, e.g., "the Star Trek original series ran three seasons, from 1966-1969." Thus, each 13-episode Doctor Who "series" is called a "season" in the U.S. Jeff (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I do notice that the pre-Paul McGann years are broken up into "seasons", not "series", and the article does note the change in convention. No doubt this is due to some arcane BBC manifestation. My understanding of British TV is that a "series" is one contracted-for group of productions, and that they tend to be contracted a bunch (six episodes, 26 episodes, whatever) at a time. Thus, Monty Python had four "series". In the U.S., shows are frequently contracted for several "seasons", some number of episodes per season, at the same time. Is there a BBC convention from the pre-1990 period that would be a more consistent way of describing the episode organization? Jeff (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

concerning the season/series thing - basic summary of previous discussions is "that's what the BBC call them" (see the BBC website. People like to claim that "season = america, series=britain" - but is there any source for that anywhere? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've not found a reliable source, and the wikipedia article on the matter Television program#seasons/series has no referances. However there does seem to be a pattern here, for example the TV program(me) The Apprentice has BBC and NBC versions. The BBC version has series (visible on the current website [28], scroll down to the bottom), the NBC version seasons [29]. The wikipedia article copy the language of these sources, so we have articles such as The Apprentice (U.S. season 1) and The Apprentice (UK series one).

In summary I've found reliable sources that some US programs have seasons and UK programmes series. It is difficult to describe the pattern in an article without trespassing into WP:OR and if you find one it needs to go in the article mentioned above. However we do have sources describing the current Doctor Who series as series (the front of the DVDs [30] for example) and the previous as seasons. edited from previous temp save Edgepedia (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's kind of what I meant by "that's what the BBC call them" 188.221.79.22 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively in the past (here), and while 'series' is the commonly used term in the UK, it seems that 'season' was used deliberately by the makers of the programme to describe a run of stories (or 'serials').--Michig (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Just looked it up in a British English Dictionary. Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus. Glasgow, Great Britain: HarperCollins. 2000. ISBN 9780007235773. has one of the meanings of series as "set of radio or television programmes having the same set of characters but different stories." There is no reference to TV programmes under season. Anyone got access to an American English Dictionary? Edgepedia (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Spring and autumn

The article uses seasons to indicate the rough dates for the scheduled broadcast of Series 6. The problem is that seasons in the northern hemisphere are the reverse of those in the southern hemipshere. While an astute reader could readily deduce that the article is referring to the British seasons, it would be better to avoid the ambiguity in the first place. Ideally the article would state the months that the show is scheduled to air. If this is not available then the terms British spring or northern hemisphere spring would be perfectly fine.

I would change it myself but the article is currently protected.

111.69.254.226 (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Entries that allow for northern v. southern hemisphere are cumbersome, and not particularly practical. The point of reference for the broadcast is the country of origin; with a show as well-known as Doctor Who, I doubt there's much ambiguity that the article refers to British spring and autumn. Therefore spring and autumn as the occur in the UK are the appropriate labels for the projected broadcast dates. Drmargi (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a MoS issue, though, in this; see MoS: Seasons. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My reading of the MoS section on seasons was that it didn't seem to apply. Yes, it does note a date is preferable, but given we don't have one, the season is the best time indicator we have. In this case, the referent that orients the seasons (i.e. a UK show) makes the time period referred to clear. The MoS entry seems to address situations where that isn't the case. Drmargi (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely the fact that it says "the first seven episodes will be broadcast in the spring and the final six in the autumn" makes it completely obvious that it is north anyway - Or are they should the final 6 episodes first, then the first 7? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

National Television Awards 2011

Dr Who featured in a special ITV episode of the ITV awards show. Should this be reflected in the article?Gavin Lisburn (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this should go in the Doctor Who (series 5) article. If you listed all the awards and nominations Doctor Who has, this page would be too long. Edgepedia (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Series 5

am I wrong in saying the codes for series 5 are incorrect, they say 1.01 etc. should they not say 5.01 etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.245.173 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The production codes are correct; these are the ones used by the BBC for series 5. — Edokter (talk) — 04:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Story numbering

The story numbering appears to be in need of review (possibly due to the serial Shada not having been aired, but I am not certain). The Season 18 serial "Meglos" is numbered as 110 but the DVD release numbers it as Story 111, therefore the error is before this entry. --RedKnight (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I just took a look at a couple other DVDs I have and discovered that "Silver Nemesis" of Season 25 is indicated as Story 154 on the DVD yet it is 150 in the episode listing here. Obviously there is a disconnect between the episode list and the BBC release numbering, and unless I'm missing something the error is with the list here. If anyone can shed some light on this I would appreciate it. --RedKnight (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The first error probably comes from the numbering of a potential release of Shada - though I would ask does anyone have any documentation about whether "Mission to the Unknown" is considered a stand alone story (the way we have it numbered) or is it part of The Dalek Masterplan ? The second disconnect is almost certainly from The Trial of a Time Lord season. It is titled as one ongoing story and we have it numbered that way, but it was produced as - and has always been marketed as - four stories. We should try to bring our numbering into line with an outside WP:RS. Barring that we should either footnote our numbering - which is a preferable way to go than just eliminating it. MarnetteD | Talk 18:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The numbering of the stories was changed to fit the numbering of Planet of the Dead as the 200th story and the subsequent DWM list. DonQuixote (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. It looks as though we are going to have a conflict between the DWM article and the BBC in the numbering that they are using to market the DVD's. I see that we have an explanatory paragraph about this (sorry for missing it earlier today.) Does anyone think that we should add a section header to it to make it stand out a bit more? I would also be curious if anyone who has the DWM issue could fill me in on how they treat Shada. Thanks for filling us in DQ. MarnetteD | Talk 00:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the DVD numbering is only on Region 1 releases, no numbers appear on the UK DVDs. The DVD numbers are noted on the list of DVDs and on each episode where the numbers are different (I added the notes to all the episodes - it took ages). There is no perfect solution - if we changed it back (which is a lot of work) then people will be clamouring for the list to match the DWM one, which is how it ended up being changed in the first place. New series DVDs aren't numbered at all so it's only an issue for US readers for The Leisure Hive through to the TV Movie. Maccy69 (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

On shada - basically the argument is "it wasn't aired, therefore doesn't count towards to total of aired episodes". On Trial "All episodes were Trial of a time lord, parts 1-14, so one story". Planet of the Dead deliberately had a number 200 bus by that reasoning, as with those two things, it would be the 200th story. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the oddity carries over to TARDIA.wikia and I have posted the question there as well. It is odd that this came to light recently when I attempted to use this list as a "checklist" for episode shopping. May I propose a "sandbox" of some sort to list the story numbers as they appear in released DVDs, then perhaps fill in the blanks as the list is filled in? --Redknight (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Redknight. You are far better off using this wikiarticle List of Doctor Who DVD releases as a checklist for your DVD's. It adheres closer to the BBC's numbering system and has future release dates for the stories that are upcoming. MarnetteD | Talk 15:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. The difference between numbering is still worth investigating I think, but that list will certainly help. --Redknight (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

^ http://www.sfx.co.uk/2010/09/22/doctor-who-set-photos/

[1] ttp://www.sfx.co.uk/2010/09/22/doctor-who-set-photos/

[1]