Talk:Doctor Who series 14/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Yasmin Finney as new Rose

Why no mention? Is it confirmed that she is only in for the 60th anniversary specials? Romomusicfan (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it confirmed that she's in anything further than the 60th anniversary specials? -- Alex_21 TALK 11:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Nothing was said to suggest she wasn't, she was just announced as the new companion.Romomusicfan (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, specifically for the 60th anniversary specials. Milly Gibson has been announced as another new companion from Series 14. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Ncuti Gatwa announced as "Fourteenth Doctor"

A line in this article states "Ncuti Gatwa was announced to have been cast as the Fourteenth Doctor." This isn't factually correct as the press release by the BBC specifically avoided calling him the "Fourteenth" Doctor, instead stating that he was cast as the new Doctor to take on the role. Both sources provided for the line do not mention the words "Fourteenth Doctor" and show that he was referred to as the new Doctor and not numbered as the Fourteenth initially as the article claims. A more accurate line would be that he was announced to have been cast as the "new" or "next" Doctor. Flabshoe1 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The press release is a primary source; it was widely reported by secondary sources that he would play the Fourteenth Doctor. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Are you saying that secondary sources are more useful in determining what to put here than the primary source is?
The secondary source page literally says "gives author's own thinking" and is "one step removed from an event"
Where has it also been discussed? Panda815 (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Precisely, yes. Wikipedia is based off of secondary sources. If you don't know this, I recommend reading up on our reliable sources and verifiability policies before further editing. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out Alex21. I had no idea that the Wikipedia policy contradicted itself like that. Might be an issue worth looking at? Panda815 (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Panda815 (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Not contradicting at all. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It certainly is contradicting. This page clearly states that "Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized". You just pointed out the WP:PST says that secondary sources are what the entirety of Wikipedia is based on. Secondary sources are "author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event". Secondary sources are not knowledge that is already established and recognised, as the PST page admits that secondary sources are in fact, just the musings of the source's author. That is what is contradictory.
That is your opinion; however, this talk page is not for your opinions on Wikipedia's firmly established policies, but for this particular article. Cheers. -- Alex_21 TALK 10:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly relevant to this article and it's clear to see how we got to this point if you read the entire thread. Obviously my challenging this doesn't mean I can change the consensus of this branch of the talk page but the discussion can remain talking about wikipedia policies. Panda815 (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk about the content of the article here. If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies, then post about it on the talk page of that particular policy. Secondary sources contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary source. They are explaining the existing facts, not creating new facts.
Yes, I've read this discussion, and it's going around in circles, just like your past discussions. -- Alex_21 TALK 10:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
If you're referring to this one when you say going around in circles, it only did that because those replying to me carried on pushing their point without actually listening to how I was disagreeing with them. They repeated the same thing without expanding or answering my questions. They STILL haven't now.Panda815 (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Exactly the same as what you're doing. And again: this discussion is still not discussing the content of this article. Just policies and past discussions. Move on. -- Alex_21 TALK 10:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Episode 2 in production blocks

Just pinging @Alex 21: as a regular contributor. Episode 2 is currently listed under Robinson's third block based on this source from the article. I did however notice, the most recent source states: "Gold revealed that Episode Two is one of two episodes Chessell is filming," which would place Episode 2 in the fourth block with Chessell. May be worth removing it for now until we have definitive confirmation? This CultBox source also says "It consists of at least two episodes with the first one referred to as the “opening episode”" in reference to Robinson's block which may imply Episode 1 rather than 2? TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've gone ahead and removed the episodes from the production blocks. This is the direct quote from DWM and Gold, so you're quite right. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. In this discussion, editors primarily discuss, without !voting, the confusing titling of Doctor Who seasons.

There isn't an agreement on whether this article needs to be moved, nor is there an agreement on what the title should be if moved; the closest we come to a consensus is that we should wait and see what reliable sources do before raising this for discussion again.

While this discussion hasn't been relisted, there is no reason to believe that doing so will help a consensus emerge, and so instead I will just suggest we drop this topic for now, and wait for additional sources to emerge that can guide us. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 14) → ? – Per WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology, the previous seasons/series of Doctor Who have been titled "Season #" for the classic era, and "Series #" for the revived era, noting the difference from when the programme moved from Season 26 to Series 1 upon the 2005 revival. This had lead up to Series 13 in 2021. According to interviews with the showrunner, as well as entries on the official Doctor Who websites, the numbering system is to be reset, to define a new "era". That is, what has previous been referred to as Series 14, will now be referred to as Season 1.

The questions are:

  1. Should this article be retitled to reflect this change to "Season 1", or should it remain at its "Series 14" title?
  2. If the article should be renamed, what should it be renamed to? (This is given that Doctor Who (season 1) already exists, representing the 1963–64 season, and Doctor Who (series 1) exists, representing the 2005 series.)
  3. Upon this renaming, should (and thus, what) should the previous seasons be renamed to?

Note that if this article title is changed, this should reflect upon the following entries within the programme. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think Doctor Who (season 1, 2024) is a valid option. However, I don't think a change should be made until the first episode of the season is shown and added to BBC iPlayer under "season 1", if that is what occurs. (See Talk:Waterloo Road (TV series)#Series re-renumbering, March 2023 for an example of how a series designation can potentially bounce about even after broadcast.) I also think it's worth discussing if we should go against UK vs. US convention and use "season" over "series" just because Russell T Davies says so. Is there any precedent for doing so? U-Mos (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree with your '(season 1, 2024)' suggestion, but disagree with waiting to rename the pages until the broadcast, unless you mean until the broadcast of the Christmas special. I also disagree on whether the UK v US convention should be discussed; per the Doctor Who website, it is called 'Season 1', so we don't have to rely on what RTD has said in interviews any further. Estaphel (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Good point. If the Christmas special is added to iPlayer as part of season 1 straight away, then that would be fine. I guess we already use season for 63-89 per WP:COMMONNAME, so can potentially do the same here, but I do think it's worth clarifying that as the rationale for shifting to that terminology. Lastly, if moving to Doctor Who (season 1, 2024), do we also move Doctor Who (season 1) to Doctor Who (season 1, 1963−64), or manage via a hatnote? U-Mos (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Moving the classic series to (Season 1-26, 1963-89) is probably the best port of call to avoid some confusion. The rationale I would (personally) use is that 'Season 1' (&c) is how the new series is to be marketed, referred to, and produced as, and thus justified for use. Estaphel (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree"(season X, YEAR)" seems reasonable to me, for both the classic era and this new era. Also worth noting though that if Season 1 did take this format then its year would be 2023-24 due to the christmas special. Mitchy Power (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The date should only be the year of the first release, not the range, just as we don't add the year range to TV series disambiguation, but only the year of first release. Gonnym (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree on reflection. Annoying when we get to Doctor Who (season 10), but oh well. I think the upcoming season should be disambiguated with 2024, as the main series commences in that year and that is supported by common usage. U-Mos (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
There is already existing precedent for having the range in the title with Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) despite most episodes being released in 2009. Mitchy Power (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
That is because that page is an artificial construct Wikipedia has invented. Gonnym (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Here are my opinions on each problem with a short argument in favor of them.
  • I agree with using season 1 for the upcoming season istead of 14, since the official sources are referring to it this way and now even secondary sources are using this naming convention. I disagree with the use of the "season, year" format cause it sounds strange to have the season number before the year (the season is a smaller specification than the run 1963-89, which is smaller than doctor who). Also this opens the problem on what to do with the following seasons. What are we going to write, "season 2, 2024"? Even if it released in 2025? Or are we going to change the year each season, creating even more confusion? I would use the same system I will explain in point 3.
  • I wouldn't change the naming convention for the season of the classic series. It was just "Doctor Who" at the time. So the way we have them reflects production and popular belief on those seasons at the time and it is also immediately recognizable as the classic era.
  • I would change the revival era seasons in "Doctor Who 2005 (season #)" (or series #). This way every season from the revival era would be labeled the same way with only the brakets explaining to what we are referring of that specific run. We would have "Doctor Who 2005 (season 10)", for example, or "Doctor Who 2005 (2022 specials)". As I said in point 1, this should also be the naming convention for the new run. I think it's obvious we should use 2023 as a label since the current specials (and the christmas one) are part of the new run. This also reflects the naming convention of BBC official site. So I propose "Doctor Who 2023 (2023 specials)" and "Doctor Who 2023 (season 1)" and, for the announced second season featuring Ncuti, "Doctor Who 2023 (season 2)".
  • It seems to me that this way the three runs are easily distintic, the format isn't too heavy (like it would be using the "season, year" one, which also opens some problems about the 2023/2024 thing and how to name the following seasons, with season 2 having either 2025, leading to each season a different year, or 2024, which isn't even the start of the new run, both factually and for the naming convention used by BBC) but just adds a year to represent the run with the start of the new era. It also mimics the best way official sources. Lastly, and most important, it is tidy and accessible for everyone to understand, even if their doctor who knowledge isn't very deep and they are just starting now to approach the series and use wikipedia to have more informations about the show. Summing up, few examples:
    • Doctor Who (season 1): refers to the 1963 season. It would be the name of the current Doctor Who (season 1) page (name doesn't change).
    • Doctor Who 2005 (2013 specials): refers to the two specials marking the last appearance of Matt Smith's doctor. It would be the name of the current Doctor Who (2013 specials).
    • Doctor Who 2023 (2023 specials): refers to the current specials airing. It would be the name of the current Doctor Who (2023 specials). Just as the current article does, it wouldn't feature the 2023 Christmas special, that would go in:
    • Doctor Who 2023 (season 1): refers to the first season from Ncuti, christmas special included. It would be the name of the current Doctor Who (series 14).
PersiaF |Talk|Contr| 13:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
It is indeed interesting how many secondary sites now also publish a split between revived Who and "Doctor Who 2023" specifically, including Rotten Tomatoes and BARB viewing data (select the most recent week and you'll see TSB). -- Alex_21 TALK 20:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Follow what the majority of sources are doing. And we may not know that for some time, and thus not have a reason to move away from "(series 14)". If the RS do end up mostly calling it "season 1", then we're going to have to disambiguate with something like "Doctor Who (2024, season 1)" or "Doctor Who (2024 season 1)" if people hate the comma (here seems to be a lot of comma-hate around WP:TV lately for some reason). I don't agree with "(season 1, 2024)" or the awful "(season 1 2024)", because the date is a disambiguator from previous "versions" or whatever you want to call them of the show, not a disambiguator of the season name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The date does disambiguate the season, unless you're proposing Doctor Who (2023, season 1), Doctor Who (2023, season 2), Doctor Who (2023, season 3) etc.? U-Mos (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree with U-Mos, this is a case of season disambiguation and not TV series. If it was the TV series itself, we'd have something like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series, season 1). In this example the disambiguation is for a different TV series of "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles". Here Doctor Who is the same TV series and what we need to disambiguate is what year the season is, so the disambiguation should come after "season 1". Gonnym (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Not to throw the cat among the pigeons, but the problem here is that the source article Doctor Who refers to at least four productions - the original, the TV movie, BBC Wales (with co-producers), and now Bad Wolf for BBC Studios. The BBC Studios solo run barely escapes becoming a fifth due to its advertisement and common understanding as a direct continuation of the BBC Wales series.
It's fun as a fan to see it as one series, and good for anniversaries, but even the Guinness World Record which confirms this saw it as a non-consecutive run, contrasting with Stargate.
Wikipedia has gotten away with disambiguating between the different tranches of episodes using the season/series synonym, but this not necessarily fair on all English users. Years for all three cases would be clearest.
I would cite the BBC iPlayer, admittedly selectively, as a source of how to proceed. It is now being promoted as three TV series, (1963-1996), (2005-2022), and (2023-). I would suggest rewriting the main page to reflect that it is an ongoing television franchise, that has had a range of extended media now promoted as the Whoniverse. The central piece of media is a TV series, produced as described above.
Then you would have Doctor Who (1963 TV series), Doctor Who (1996 movie), Doctor Who (2005 TV series), and Doctor Who (2023 TV series) articles. The main article talks about Doctor Who as a whole, and the other articles divvy up the history, comment and criticism as it applies to each production run.
Then you could disambiguate the series/seasons like the TMNT example above.
2023 or 2024? Cite iPlayer for now, but if an overwhelming number of sources say the series starts in 2024, rather than in 2023 with 1 or 4 specials, then you move it.
So you end up with Doctor Who (1963, season 1), Doctor Who (2005, series 1) and Doctor Who (2023, season 1). Doctor Who (season 1) is a disambiguation page with the three links above, and a passing reference at the end to the unproduced first season of the 1996 version, and a link to that section of that article. jamdav86 (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
As the BBC splits it into three on iPlayer (1963-1996; 2005-2022; 2023- )I wouldn't have an issue with treating them the same here Etron81 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Remember when they were branding Series 5 as Series 1? Let's apply WP:NORUSH, and wait a couple of years to see how this plays out. Nfitz (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
    I do think DVD cover art for the upcoming season is the only thing that will conclusively settle it, in terms of common usage. jamdav86 (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
    The BBC are listing it was Season 1 starting with the 2023 Christmas special - we could wait and see how it's classified on iPlayer and the like too Etron81 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
    I was initially also agreeing with this, and using this as a basis for reverting edits from Series 14 to Season 1, but now the BBC have officially labelled it as Season 1, something they never did for Series 5; that was solely DWM and Moffat's marketing. I definitely disagree with waiting "years"; at the very latest would be the announcement of the season's home media release. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
    I would at least wait until the season proper is airing so we can see what the various services have it labeled as at the time, and what sources are referring to it as. Then, if it is definitely "season 1", we can have a follow-up discussion to confirm how this would be differentiated from the classic seasons. Hopefully there will be consensus on the season disambiguation discussion by then as well, which could help confirm the new disambiguation here. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Alex 21: Page rename discussions are outside the scope of the RfC process. I suggest that you amend the start of this thread to use the appropriate method. The most important is to use {{subst:requested move}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Television has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Doctor Who has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Science Fiction has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose until January 2025: per WP:ONESOURCE, we cannot rely too much on the BBC's arbitrary numbering. Let us also see what other sources say and review in a year's time. I suspect most sources will refer to it as Series 14 although it should be noted the Telegraph was the one source that referred to the Eccleston/Tennant years as Series 27, 28, 29 (etc) as late as 2008. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
All the seasons should be renamed Doctor Who (1963-1964 season) etc etc up to Doctor Who (2024 season). This is in line with existing naming convention for groups of specials eg. Doctor Who (2008-2010 specials). It would also be future-proofed and would still work regardless of what each season is generally referred to as at a given time. The season names generally used (eg. season 1) can be put on the page in a similar to how series thirteen is also known as 'Flux'. The season names generally used can also be kept on the list of episodes page (as these already have the dates in brackets, so the two season ones would naturally be differentiated). Currently, there are no two seasons that would have the same name in this format and seasons are now broadcast at the most annually so there's very unlikely to be a problem with this in the future. The closest to problematic namings would be season 9 - Doctor Who (1972 season) - and season 10 - Doctor Who (1972-1973 season) - but even these names are clearly different and it's clear which one came after the other. This is surely more consistent and efficient than the current naming convention and all the future ones currently proposed.
Also, for my two cents, I think the episode list pages should be split the same way as iPlayer (1963, 2005, 2023). In the turnover between Chibnall and Davies, we almost got another wilderness years (no successor was in place as The Power of the Doctor was filmed, it almost ended on Jodie's regeneration fading to black with no new Doctor) so it kind of makes sense to start a new page for the 60th specials onwards. 139.222.127.225 (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
While the titles of the articles and such are up for discussion, I would absolutely disagree with a third episodes article, as that is not how they are created, as there are not enough episodes to split per MOS:TVSPLIT and Wikipedia:Article splitting (television). Currently, a new episodes article would consist of only four episodes. We base episode articles on amount of content, not on arbitrary splits. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree, at this point I think it'd just be better to go by year, considering all seasons from the 60s are neatly split by year apart from one. Especially if they restart the season numbering. Having titles say "season X" and "series X" was never a good format to begin with, and the format "Doctor Who (2005, series 1)" just seems unwieldy to me, and "Doctor Who (2023, series 1)" would be implying its the start of a new show in 2023, which it isn't.
For some reason, despite for all intents and purposes the 2022 and 2023 specials being series/seasons in the normal sense, they are called "specials". And now its further confused, again, by them restarting the numbering (presumably because Disney+ didn't get the rights to episodes before 2023).
Although this isn't the neatest solution, its probably the only one that makes sense, especially if this is true in a literal sense, as in DVD/Blu Ray releases, not just marketing hype or labelling on Disney+ only. Wikipedia obviously can't have 3 articles about a show's "first" season. This is obviously just the same show restarting the season numbering (for whatever reason), whereas the 2005 and 1963 shows are different. MarkiPoli (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Move to Doctor Who (2024 season) (or Doctor Who (2024 series), they're both fine). Also possibly sending a trout to the BBC for having no less than three season 1's. At this point, just using date is probably safer. No objection to moving again once there's a clearer COMMONNAME in media for how this season eventually ends up being referred to, but given that it's too soon to have one, date is one thing that can be guaranteed for sure. SnowFire (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
    Given above suggestions, it seems there's a common !vote on renaming the article disambiguations to (YEAR season) or (YEAR series). The issue then remains, what do we do with the leads? They're still known as Season 12, Series 5, etc. However, it seems that this particular series is being referred to as the "fourteenth series" less and less, so should the lead then call it the first season of a new era of production? -- Alex_21 TALK 10:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    So that my !vote isn't misinterpreted: This is not a call to rename all the other season articles. They're fine as is. Rather, 2024 is a neutral "holding" name while waiting to see how this specific season is referred to in reliable sources. And if we end up with old seasons known by number and new season known by date, that's okay - we shouldn't expect perfect consistency over 60 years. SnowFire (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    It does seem that we will probably want to note this as the start of a new era, perhaps the "Whoniverse era" if there are sources to support that. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    I've already voiced my favour of just leaving it be for a long while until the dust settles. But "2024 series" sure makes more sense than Season 1. Hang on, haven't we had four season/series 1s? The 1963/64 season 1, along with the 2005 series 1, 2010 series 1, and now 2024 season 1. As for the choice of name itself, it should be more based on what the independent (non-BBC) media are calling it? The only mainstream coverage I've seen recently refers to it interchangeable as the "fourteenth season" and "Series 14". Nfitz (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
    The "2010 series 1" was only a marketing term used by Moffat and DWM, it was then later released by the BBC as Series 5. However, this series/season is deliberately marked and named as Season 1 by the BBC. This source notes that we intend to call it Season 14, but clarifies that it's definitely Season 1; RadioTimes also quotes a producer referring to it as Season 1, and Doctor Who TV (a source widely used across Who articles) discusses how this was intended by Moffat and Chibnall too, but how it's going ahead with Davies. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
May I instead Suggest that we rename Series 14 to Stream 1? It matches the S theme, doesnt change the past titles and goes with the streaming era. If we do it now maybe Russell and the devs get the hint and make it consistent. Fili999999 (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
That's not how this works. We follow the sources; we don't dictate them. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Lots of great points so far.

Firstly, I've been reflecting on the naming problem for a while and I think the solution might have to involve renaming previous iterations of the show too, so that there is a consistent naming convention, otherwise it is going to be very ambiguous between what's "season one" and "series one" and whatever and make it harder for a non-expert in the topic to navigate to.

I think including the date is the best way forward, but I agree with PersiaF that that would lead us to the undesirable situation of having pages like "season 2, 2023" when in fact it aired in 2025. I think this is best resolved by including a date range per show rather than just the first year it aired.

(Another small point in favour of this is that the new numbering on the BBC's website starts season 1 from December's episode "The Church on Ruby Road", which would mean Doctor Who (2023) could either be the 2023 specials or the start of season 1, which mainly runs into 2024 (!).)

Anyway, I propose the following revised naming convention:

This is a bit future-proof so that in fifteen years time when they reboot Doctor Who again, we can rename 2023–present to 2023–2038 and start naming new seasons 2038–present, series/season/stream 1... (!)

-- JCrue (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should disambiguate unnecessarily, i.e. 2005-22 series articles don't need to be moved. I'm on the fence whether 63-89 season articles that don't have a corresponding 2023-pres article (i.e. currently season 3 onwards) should be changed, but WP:TITLECON might suggest they should. U-Mos (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I am concerned about consistency across the articles and not confusing casual readers, but that doesn't necessarily mean we need to go back and rename the old articles. I think it would be consistent enough to just go with Doctor Who (season X) for the classic seasons, Doctor Who (series X) for the revival series, and Doctor Who (2023–present, season X) for the new era. However, once this new era comes to an end we would need to go back and move all of the new season articles to no longer have "present" which doesn't seem ideal. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2023 (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.

Chris Roebuck LinkedIn

We know that Chris Roebuck edited block 1, directed by Dylan Holmes Williams and produced by Vicki Delow, but he also edited Block 4, directed by Ben Chessell and is produced by Chris May. https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-roebuck-53824860/?originalSubdomain=uk Since May is the credited producer on Block 4, I feel like that's sufficent enough to be listed on the production table. -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) 00:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Poster

The ed17 What part of the poster markets anything to do with the season itself, such as marketing related to the season number, year, network or airing details? I seem to see a character and a logo, related to the programme rather than the season, and that's it. Can you show me a reliable source that uses this image and describes it as marketing specifically for Series 14? -- Alex_21 TALK 21:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Rcsprinter123 as well. I'm completely baffled by your stance here, Alex. In what universe is a promotional poster of a TV show's main character, one that was released to create anticipation for a series' upcoming release, not marketing for the series? The original source article is entirely about the hype for the upcoming series release, and of course the BBC's release of the poster was part of their marketing campaign to draw viewers to the new series. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Okay, in shorter terms: What part of the poster promotes the season itself? Does it say "Series 14", does it have a date, a window year for its release? Or is it just a poster of a main character? Look at every other image used in every other season article, and note how they all actually reference the season in question in the image. Does this poster reference Series 14? -- Alex_21 TALK 22:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
@Alex 21 Marketing the main character of a TV show is in this case indistinguishable from marketing for the TV show itself. And not only that, this image was created to market series 14. There is no rule that I know of that says images on TV show season articles need to specifically reference that particular season within the image to be eligible for inclusion.
Also, I selected Dynasty (2017 TV series, season 1) at random from a category of a recent year of TV shows. It uses a plain image of what I presume is the main cast. (At random is indeed random, so a grain of salt is appropriate. Still, I found it interesting.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 00:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
What I'm saying it, it's a promotional poster for the Fifteenth Doctor, so it belongs at the Fifteenth Doctor article. Why not upload the Ruby Sunday poster? This means it fails WP:NFCCP #8, as the picture of the Doctor does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, as there's already such a promotional image at Fifteenth Doctor - what does this particular image add?
Compare this poster with the Series 13 poster; it has the season title and premiere date. Compare this poster with the Series 13 poster; it has the season title and premiere date.
Referring to the source as "Doctor Who season 14: Release date speculation and latest news", that is simply a constantly-updated compilation of the latest news, it definitely isn't the original source. The Dynasty example, in my opinion, is definitely a poor example of a poster. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think a poster needs to contain specific text to be deemed promotional material for a series/episode, if it is being used as such. However, in this instance the poster image is being used primarily to promote the Christmas special, not the series as a whole. See the social media posts that launched it after "The Giggle" aired: "Meet the new Doctor... returns Christmas Day 2023". One could argue that this image is promotional for "The Church of Ruby Road" in the same way the (equally text free) posters for the 60th episodes are, and is appropriate for use in that episode's infobox when the time comes. U-Mos (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Christmas specials aren't actually part of their respective seasons, we just group them together for the sake of convenience, and the 2023 specials article didn't have a poster until there was one respective of the entire group of specials, rather than the individual posters. We can absolutely upload the latest Christmas special-specific poster to The Church on Ruby Road once the episode has aired and the article is live. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Alex 21: I'm concerned that you're misunderstanding what I've said. These are the facts: this is a 1) promotional poster for a TV show's main character—the character the entire show is named after, in fact—that was 2) released to promote the upcoming series in which 3) the new iteration of the character is to star. That line of thought leads to 4) that the promotional poster can be used as a non-free image in an article about the series. Of course we wouldn't use Ruby Sunday, as she's not the main character, and I'm surprised to see you raise that red herring. The Radio Times is the original source for the uploaded image; obviously the BBC is the original source as defined by who created it.
Clearly we're not going to get anywhere here, as you have a different interpretation of policies, so I've brought the image to FfD for wider input and will let a consensus there decide one way or another. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
FfD link. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Ruby Sunday isn't a main character, come again? She's just of equal importance as the Fifteenth Doctor, and is set to be credited alongside him in the opening credits, hence main cast. Open the FfD as you see fit, there still remains WP:NORUSH to add in a poster, especially if, as above, it doesn't actually advertise Series 14, but rather an episode outside of the series. In only a few months, if not even less (given that we have confirmation that we'll see a Series 14 trailer directly after the Christmas special), such a poster will become available, one that compares to the examples I've already provided. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Chibnall

@Ilovedoctorwhoandninjago, kindly do not edit war. If you disagree with a revert, you should discuss on a talk page (as per WP:BRD). You are correct that Chibnall took over in 2017, but Moffat took over in 2009 and Davies started in 2004 (or earlier). Despite that they are said to have begun in 2010 and 2005 respectively. In addition, Chris Chibnall's page states he was showrunner from 2018. It does not aid understanding to state he was showrunner from 2017. His first series as showrunner was 2018, which is what is relevant. A short scene at the end of an episode does not make it so, and saying '2017' does nothing to aid understanding. Irltoad (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The BBC state that Chibnall took over as show runner in 2017 and we report what the sources say: [1]. The role did not start with the airing of the 2018 series. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Then there needs to be consistency between and within articles, and the same goes for Moffat (2009 not 2010) and Davies (2004 not 2005; 2022 not 2023; leaving 2009 not 2010) as that is the year they started as showrunner. My understanding, however, is that the dates are for the series that they were showrunner for, rather than the exact date they started and ended the role, in the same way that Jodie Whittaker is referred to as having played the Doctor until 2022, despite finishing filming in 2021. Irltoad (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Just as each of the Doctor articles list their tenure dates as their first regular episode, not their first guest appearance (i.e. Fifteenth is the 2023 Christmas special, not The Giggle), the same applies for showrunners - 2018 is correct for Chibnall. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
That is, IMO, too simplistic and indefensible given that the sources say otherwise. If you wish to say that Chibnall was the showrunner for the series which aired from 2018, you should explicitly state that. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
As already said, RTD has always been listed as 2005–2010 (as opposed to 2004–2009), Moffat as 2010–2017 (as opposed to 2009–2016), Chibnall as 2018–2022 (as opposed to 2018–2021), and RTD again from 2023– (as opposed to 2021–). This conforms with the tenure for the fifteenth Doctors thus far as well. Why the concern over the 2017/2018 year, and not the fact that his time as showrunner also ended in 2021? -- Alex_21 TALK 20:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I think we are talking at crossed-purposes. The table you are now citing makes it clear those are transmission dates, and is fine. I was responding, as an uninvolved editor, to the "open letter" from Irltoad to Ilovedoctorwhoandninjago about the latter changing the 2018 to 2017 in Davies also reportedly asked Chris Chibnall, who had served as showrunner from 2018 to 2022, to return as a writer, but this offer was declined. Language is important; 2017 is absolutely correct per the BBC source in the context of that sentence, but also it would be absolutely fine to use the 2018 date if it was made clear he had served as showrunner in the 2018 to 2022 series. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
What I'm trying to point out with that table, is that all those actors (bar the first) appeared before the dates listed under "Original start" in their first guest appearance, and then that first guest appearance is listed as the broadcast of their first full episode (for example, Capaldi was the Doctor since December 2013, but is listed as August 2014). In the same manner for showrunners, Chibnall (at this and his own biographical article) is also listed by the date of his first main series. I would recommend taking a look at the related articles to see identical examples of the daterange for Chibnall's (or any other's) showrunner run. To be more specific: we list when they were first credited in the role; see how RTD is listed as 2023 in the Doctor Who infobox, yet he was first announced in 2021. Chibnall was firsted credited within the program as the showrunner in 2018. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I think it wouldn't at all hurt to clarify the phrase with something along the lines of what you suggested (or eg. replace it with "for series 11 to 13"). I do take issue with saying "2017" though, particularly in a stand-alone sentence in a tangentially related article. When it is said that he took over in 2017 it's fairly clear exactly what is meant, but using the date range can suggest that it refers to the dates of the series, particularly as this is the way it is used for other showrunners and actors. When someone says "Whittaker played the Doctor from 2018 until 2022" it is implied that this refers to the years she was credited as the Doctor, rather than the years she filmed the character. As far as I'm concerned, the same implicit understanding should be applied to showrunners' tenures or it just risks confusion. Irltoad (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who_series_14/Archive_1&oldid=1223386392"