Talk:Spyfall (Doctor Who)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spyfall (Doctor Who) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Spyfall (Doctor Who) is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Story numbering

We list this as story 288, while TARDIS Wiki lists it as 287. This stems from us listing Heaven Sent & Hell Bent as stories 261 and 262, while they list those as stories 261a and 261b. Which numbering is correct? What proves that correctness? All other multi-episode stories were listed using the ###a, ###b format. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From [1]

I've reviewed a copy of #493. Specifically the HS/HB article in it says We’re not even going to tell you if Heaven Sent and Hell Bent really form a two-parter or not. (The DWM team is divided on he subject. Half of us say it is, and the other half say it isn’t.)" [page 26] - which unfortunately means for issue #493 that it is not providing a source either way. However later they expand with some quotes from Moffat (which seem humorous now, given what we are actually debating) [page 31] “Are these episodes one- or two-parters?” DWM readers cry. Steven says: “Again, as a fan wanting to stack everything in order and understand everything precisely in terms of how many episodes there are and how many stories, I’m in a state about that. I have to sit and tell myself which ones really count as two-parters – which is completely against the whole idea, which is to break up the idea that we actually have to say! The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived were sort of a two-parter, and they were sort of not.” DWM is going with not...? “Well, you don’t need to have a definitive answer. Except when I’m being a fanboy; then I just go into a little meltdown and suck my thumb. I’m really, genuinely no better than anyone else. All the people who get the crossest at me are those most like me. Obviously, The Magician’s Apprentice and The Witch’s Familiar are the same story. You could make that one movie. And The Zygon Invasion and The Zygon Inversion. But Heaven Sent and Hell Bent... maybe Face the Raven, too... are they a mini serial? A story split in three, or two? In the end, it doesn’t really matter.”. What is clear here - Moffat is stating that TGWD, TWWL, FTR, HS, HB are not officially designated as being two/three parters and that the matter is actually open to interpretation. I think in light of other evidence the default needs to be each episode (from 2005) is assumed to be a single episode - with the burden of proof for linking any episodes relies on a direct statement from a reputable source. I am fine for DWM to take on the role as the formal source (as it has for the entire episode list to date) - DWM does state the episodes are split unambiguously in #495 and state they have backing from Moffat for stating so. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

DonQuixote (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UtherSRG, please see the links at the bottom of the header at Talk:Doctor Who (series 9) for multiple discussions at the topic. The TARDIS Wiki will definitely be out of date when we reach story 300 next year and they find that they need to fix their issue there. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity

I do not understand why Gallifrey and Jodrell Bank have been removed. Gallifrey is not “trainspotting” it is clearly continuity. Gallifrey is an overhanging arc that deserves a mention on continuity every time it is seen.

Jodrell Bank was put in to Spyfall purely for CONTINUITY purposes. What else could you possibly think it is? Panda815 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was Gallifrey sourced by a reliable source? No. The Sun is not allowed per WP:RSPSOURCES.

Is the Logopolis a continuing storyline? No. So it's not continuity, as it does not continue an existing storyline. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE:"This is in reference to the fact that..."

Restating what I said on the IP's talk page, you need the source to state "This is in reference to the fact that..." (or something similar) before you can cite it for saying "This is in reference to the fact that...". DonQuixote (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DonQuixote's contradicitons

I made an edit to expand on the Terrance Dicks' dedication in the end credits in which I said that he was credited as the Masterful Terrance Dicks.

I explained that as script editor he co-created the Master when the Master made his debut in Terror of the Autons.

This got removed by DonQuixote who demonstrated no familiarity with Doctor Who when he said that this has to be supported by sources.

If he had any familiarity with Doctor Who he would have added a source himself instead of asking me to do it.

Nevertheless I found Dicks' obituary which states him co-creating the Master and per DonQuixote's request relating to Terror of the Autons.

This still wasn't good enough saying the obituary didn't mention Spyfall. Why would the obituary mentioned Spyfall as that was broadcast afterwards.

I therefore posted another source and got removed again by DonQuixote.

I have had past problems with DonQuixote and it seems his only reason to edit this article given his unfamiliarity with Doctor Who is to harass me.

On this occasion I have asked him twice to leave me alone but he has ignored this both times.

I am now asking him for the third time to leave me alone.

His unfamiliarity with Doctor Who should mean that he should not be editing this article and he is only doing so to harass me. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is trying to be a tertiary source, the way tertiary sources work is by citing and summarising reliable sources. What you're looking for is a secondary source, such as a magazine, a fansite or even the IMDb trivia section. Serioulsy, if you want to write that "This is in reference to the fact that...", then you can go to one of those other sites or you can cite a reliable source that literally states "This is in reference to the fact that..." (or words to that effect). DonQuixote (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are again ignoring my request for you to leave me alone. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you're posting on a talk page complaining about a user's behavior, but then when the user tries to explain (a quite good explanation!) you just further complain that your initial complaint got a response? Hppavilion1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spyfall: serial or single episode?

As Spyfall is technically a serial, should this page be called Spyfall rather than "Spyfall"?

The convention seems to be that serialised episodes are presented in italics, and single, one-off episodes are presented in quotation marks, and this page does not seem to fit with that convention.

Could someone with the power to do so either change it or explain to me why this is so? 86.7.148.216 (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss at Talk:The End of Time (Doctor Who)#Serial or single episode? DonQuixote (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]