Talk:Doctor Who series 5/Archive 1

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

Is DWM a reliable source

DWM #418, which I am reading right now, is giving three titles :

  • The Eleventh Hour
  • The Beast Below
  • Victory of the Daleks

Is it a reliable source or not ? If not, you should erase the director and writers name as well since they are sourced from DWM. Hektor (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As a popular published magazine, yes, it is a reliable source. — Edokter • Talk • 20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill Nighy

Digital Spy has confirmed that Bill Nighy will be staring in Richard Curtis' episode as a 'van Gogh expert with some similar fashion choices to the Doctor himself'. 195.195.166.31 (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Found it. [1] They're quoting a "set insider" and it's not backed up by the BBC. Sounds like it's the status of a rumour to me. Edgepedia (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blue peter

{From Talk:List of Doctor Who serials} - It worth mentioning the Design a tardis competition for the 2010 series on this page - winning design now announced. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Trailer

A new dr who trailer will air on bbc one on saturday 20th february source[[2]] Also a new alien called a smiler will feature source[[3]]and include the promo picture on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalek1111111 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There was originally a link to above trailer on BBC iPlayer, but it will not work outside of the UK. After altering the new YouTube links to link to the iPlayer version, I reverted them to the YouTube link, so people outside of the UK can see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReddishShadow (talk • contribs) 18:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

DWM dates

Are the dates for DWM 417 and 418 correct? They don't seem to make sense to me. Edgepedia (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed DWM 417 to 3 January, and DWM 418 to 3 February, based on the DWM article. Edgepedia (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


It's every 4 weeks exactly - and released on Thursday. 417 was released on 7 Jan, 418 on 4 Feb - next one is 4 March. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Like many magazines, the cover date on DWM issues is the last day before the new one comes out. Therefore, DWM 418, released on 4 February, has the cover date 3 March, since 419 will be out on 4 March. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReddishShadow (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Before we get any PC complaints about Easter

Last year with planet of the Dead, there were a few PC complaints about using Easter - so perhaps in the text somewhere state that this year Easter is the 4th of April - not necessarily the "broadcast date" column cause there is technically no source for that exact date. Something like: "The series is scheduled to start at Easter (which is April 4th)" - in brackets, so it's not implying it's the exact date - and it explains when it is. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Easter is not the 4th April, that's Easter Sunday. Easter could mean any of the four days 2nd-5th April. Edgepedia (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess that's the point you were making. How does everyone feel about adding a footnote? We could say it's the first weekend in April. Edgepedia (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It could also not be on Easter Weekend at all. Although Doctor Who traditionally returns to screens around Easter, it's only premiered on Easter Weekend once: the 2005 series. I'm edging towards Easter being used as an approximate time of year, much like Christmas is used, until we have a source saying April 3rd. Sceptre (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Whose Easter? The Eastern Orthodox church is not tied to the Catholic/Protestant one. Unlike the Christmas episodes which have usually been tied to that holiday in some fashion no story has tied itself to Easter or its celebration. What is wrong with saying "Spring" as was the case until the last few days? If that term is too general why not say early April? MarnetteD | Talk 19:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Followup. According to wikipedias page for the term Easter Sunday is one day and the Easter season lasts for 50 days. Using this term is misleading in either case if it airs on a Saturday so I feel that we really need to use some term other than Easter for this and the list of serials page. MarnetteD | Talk 19:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I think in this case 'Easter' is the BBC's meaning of Easter, the holiday weekend. But I think we are (as last year) seeing the problems of interpreting this as a date. There's no reason to expect it to be the Eastern Orthodox one, or the 50 day Eastertide Edgepedia (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I think I'm in danger of reaching 3RR here. I'm going to suggest semi-protection for this page then leaving this alone for 24 hours. Edgepedia (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Well - it seems no need to argue - trailer says "April 3" - see here 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Where is the WP:RS for listing this as airing at Easter. The link to the new trailer does not play in the US and all of the other previews that I have just looked up online say "Coming Spring 2010". Why are we not using these as our RS for what we are putting on the page? MarnetteD | Talk 21:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Go to the BBC channel on YouTube. The trailer's available there. DonQuixote (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Heh. That's funny. The BBC channel isn't available but the trailer is: [4]. DonQuixote (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
If you are a member of Gallifrey base - someone's took a picture of it - here 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Start date is being discussed here Talk:List_of_Doctor_Who_serials#April_3rd.3F Edgepedia (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Release date

After the weeks of editing back and forth it is funny to see this page quiet for a few days. We have a confirmed released date for the new series in the US [5] of April 17th. Those of you in the UK may want to start checking things again. It is hard to believe that they would confirm a date for the US before the UK but not impossible. Just thought I would give evertone a heads up. MarnetteD | Talk 23:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly minor point, and an incredibly embarrassing confession...

I happened to be watching The Alan Titchmarch Show one day (I know, I know) ans Nina Wadia announced that she had a role in the new series. Worth adding? Absurdtrousers (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Best we should wait till ethier someone finds a proper source for her being in the series or she is confirmed. Pro66 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing the Alan Titchmarsh show, a BBC production where she herself confirms it should be enough. The story broke in the The Sun [6] which probably should not be sourced. Tphi (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Broadcast dates update

{{editsemiprotected}} As noted on the Serials page - 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) 18:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks. Note the missing information in the citation. If you can provide it, that would improve the article as well. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The 1 May should go with "Flesh and Stone" by the way. What other info is needed? release date was April 1 - section "Episode Previews" - anything else? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
No, just date of the issue and the title of the article. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Prisoner Zero?

There's a press release interview where matt says something about 'prisoner zero', an episode perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.90.16 (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1csRoAfle0

Seems to be a part of a story arc in this series, not an episode. --84.142.254.139 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, with the recent broadcast of The Eleventh Hour, we can now confirm that Prisoner Zero was the enemy in that story not an episode or story arc or anything like that. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Finale Episode information

Underneath the final episode block, there is a block of text that talks about the Pandorica opening. This has been mentioned in the opening episode, however it is still speculative to say that it will feature in the final episode of the series. Unless this fact is backed up with a reliable source stating it will feature in the episode and be the main plotline, i think it would be best removed for now. -Klaxon1000 (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)  Done removed it. Edgepedia (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  • The Radio Times summary of Episode 12 speaks about a "a puzzle box opening from the inside". Hektor (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Production Codes

Given that Series "Fnarg", as Steven likes to call it, is being produced as Series One, then surely the production codes for the series would be 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc. 86.169.44.93 (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, this 'Series 1' thing has become confusing enough already, the first Series 1 was only aired five years ago, so it's fairly recent which has caused enough confusion on it's own, now, that you mention production codes, the confusing-ness level has gone even higer. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You mean the second Series 1, actually. The first series one was in 1963-4, although it's often called "season one" due to the influence of US-published epsiode guides.... 67.241.25.16 (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
What could be seen as even more confusing is that, apparently (I haven't read the issue myself), Steven Moffat says that "Series Fnarg" is going to be promoted as Series Thirty-One. As expected though, the BBC still won't give us a name: New Doctor, New Image, New Trailer! 86.170.161.222 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well technically it would be WP:OR to give the production codes, since they haven't been mentioned. Who knows, Moffat might do a different system for the codes. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Production codes are confirmed in DWM 419. The episodes are listed as 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReddishShadow (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Beast Below figures

Just so you all know. The final BARB figures are out for "The Beast Below" givng it 7.93m. Needs to be updated. Source found here http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyTopProgrammesOverview?_s=4 With an extra .494 viewers on simultaneous BBC HD broadcast (http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyTopProgrammes?_s=4) which makes for final figures of 8.42 or thereabouts. 188.220.168.52 (talk) 16:20, 19 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) [7]. 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 [8]. magnius (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
"Amy's Choice" is episode seven. TR-BT (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for catching that! That solves that little problem. (Story number is 208 but episode number is 7, which might be the cause of the reading error.) DonQuixote (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, my bad, got totally mixed up with those codes :/ magnius (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Move request in light of DVD cover

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as per concensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who (2010 series) → Doctor Who (series 5) — http://blogtorwho.blogspot.com/2010/04/series-5-volume-1-dvd-cover-art-details.html DVD cover, says "Series 5". Therefore, with this and iplayer, whatever the production team call it amongst themselves this is being explicitly marketed as series 5 and should be listed on wikipedia as such. U-Mos (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Support It's clearly marketed as series 5. The majority of people coming here are going to have looked at Radio Times, the BBC website, iPlayer, or the DVD cover, all of which refers to it as series 5. It may have been produced as something else, but names change. Edgepedia (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Support As stated, there are now enough reliable sources, including official BBC sources, that confirm that is is popularly known as "Series 5". magnius (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Support As above. It is Series 5, regardless of internal shenanigans. There can't very well be two Series 1s out there, so what else to call it but Series 5? "2010 series" is a Wikipedia-only, neutral term that doesn't reflect the wider reality. Go for Series 5. metebelis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC).
Support Per above. TR-BT (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Per the above. The BBC has clearly chosen to call it series five. This was one of the clinching reasons that we finally called An Unearthly Child by that name instead of 100,000 BC. MarnetteD | Talk 13:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Per Edgepedia et al. Tphi (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article a list?

This article contains a sizable chunk of prose, should it really be classified as a list? ...comments? ~BFizz 21:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Its primary data, the episode details, is in list format. That qualifies. Radagast (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Final episode

In "Flesh and Stone", it is revealed that the 'time explosion' occurs on June 26, 2010. That date is when the final episode would be broadcast (assuming one episode every week continuing on from "Cold Blood". Is it safe to edit the page to reflect this, or wait until the BBC confirms the dates? 122.111.3.171 (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

We need to wait. The BBC website explicitly notes that 26/6/10 is "13 weeks after the broadcast of The Eleventh Hour" (but that's written very carefully....!) ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 08:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Final titles

Resolved
 – No evidence Twitter feed is genuine. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 13:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A Twitter feed which purports to be that of Karen Gillan has "revealed" the remaining three episode titles. Two questions, before we include this in the page: how sure are we that it is a genuine feed? And since she isn't the BBC, does it not count as a self-published source like other blogs etc.? (I have no particular position on this, but it needs to be completely clear before being added.) ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 13:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd said wait until the BBC confirms the titles, just to be sure. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Genuine feeds are verified by twitter (for example Neil Gaiman). Given that this account is not verified, we don't even have to consider the self-published source part of it. However, I would say that Karen Gillan isn't, on her own, as reliable source - she's just an actor on the show, she doesn't get to decide the final titles. Maccy69 (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, well done for spotting that the feed isn't verified. That settles that, then! ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 13:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Twitter username is now deleted. Seems it wasn't that official :) Etrigan (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect Cleanup

Now we have all thirteen titles, I've looked at the redirects we have coming here:

I looking at deleteing the redirects I've marked with a '*' as unlikely spelling, or the redirect was created based on rumours of article names. I suspect I've have to raise them at RTD as they are mostly not recent. Edgepedia (talk)

I've listed the first three (not completely successfully) at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, and nominated the last two for speedy deletion as Implausible typos. Edgepedia (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Amy's Choice

  • I am not sure about the summary of Amy's choice. It is unsourced, and I don't remember having heard that they were traveling betweem two dimensions. Hektor (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    Agreed. The unsourced version was added, reverted, and then a colleague re-added it in good faith but a discussion about which version was appropriate was cut short by an evil archive bot. For the record I prefer the Radio Times' version (the version I believe you're referring to?), and I agree that there was no travelling between two dimensions. I'd also note that the "one is real, one is fake" statement is also incorrect. In fairness, I'd note that the Radio Times' version claims that "Amy travelled ... with the Doctor five years ago", which, like the other claims, is revealed to be incorrect towards the end of the episode
    (The two versions can be seen here)
    TFOWRpropaganda 14:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Move to "Series 5"?

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.

Now we have a reliable source that calls the series "5", could someone move the page back to the Doctor Who (series 5) page? I'm not sure how to do it without copy/pasting, but I got hassle last time I did that on an article. magnius (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) We can't cut and paste it 'cos that loses the page history. We need an admin to move it to Doctor Who (series 5) because that's got an edit history. (It's all explained at Wikipedia:How to move a page). Do we have a consenses that this should be moved? Edgepedia (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Before any move is made would you please provide the "reliable source" that you are citing. 13:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Support - see here and here 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment Discussion, with reliable sources, can be found in article at the paragraph I've just labelled Doctor Who (2010 series)#seriesNumbering. In summary it was produced as series 1, but being marketed as series 5. Edgepedia (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
More comment It does appear that it's dissappeared from the BBC Programme page. Here's google's cache [9] Something's afoot or technical problems? Edgepedia (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Series 5 has just been changed to New Series [10] Edgepedia (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hold The BBC are being extraordinarily cagey about the date, probably more that than issues over the series number. I'm all for the move, but maybe holding off for now would still be the better, more cautious route? Tphi (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Weak Support The sources that were given in the article would seem to give the move the RS requirement needed for the name change even if there is some sort of backpedaling on the part of the Beeb. The fact that the DVDs are being sold the the Series 5 identifier is significant. The production codes are weird, but then again I think Series 5 would make this the common name for the article. Lost on Belmont (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hold I think because of the backpedaling by the bbc today, we need to hold the article here until we see how the it is going to be marketed. I would be happier seeing the DVD artwork, for instance. Edgepedia (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hold for now Per Edgepedia. While I think the DVD in the official shop itself makes a good enough source, we do have sources that claim that it will be called "series 1", so we should wait a bit before moving the article around. Regards SoWhy 19:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hold There's a lot of conflicting information from the BBC on how the series is going to be marketed. I think a decision should be held until the marketing title is definite. Looneyman (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Support The BBC has scheduled the eleventh hour and calls it Series 5. [11] --84.142.213.162 (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hold — although I see the WP:COMMONNAME argument, I still think that as long as we've got conflicting reliable sources we should stick with the current article title (Doctor Who (2010 series)). Yes, we've got more sources calling it "Series Five", but DWM is still sticking with "Series One". I suggest we stick with this at least until we see what the final DVD covers say. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00rs6t7/Doctor_Who_Series_5_The_Eleventh_Hour/ iPlayer referring to it as Series 5. Not sure if that makes any difference. U-Mos (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment I've just updated the article: "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.[14] BBC Programme listings,[15] iPlayer[16] and DVDs[17], refer to this as Series 5". DWM may be sticking with series one, but mainstream marketing does seem to be series 5. Edgepedia (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment The BBC Shop web site lists the first DVD as Series 5, Volume 1 http://www.bbcshop.com/Doctor-Who-Series-5-Volume-1-DVD/invt/bbcdvd3213

and Doctor Who Hideout has posed the art work for the DVD which also uses Series 5 http://doctorwhohideout.blogspot.com/2010/04/series-five-volume-one-dvd-cover.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.119.144.61 (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose BBC merchandise -- which is fairly notorious for sloppiness and inaccuracy on its box covers -- is certainly no more authoritative than the executive producer, who explicitly rejected the "series 5" title. The actual production documentation all says "series one" to the extent it's been leaked, and there's no way merchandise is more authoritative than production documentation. I think this should stay under the neutral title of the "2010 series", since absolutely nobody can argue that it is not the 2010 series. See "Descriptive Titles and Non-judgmentalism". "Series Five" should be a disambiguation page, because it's been used to refer to the 1967-68 series, the 2009 series, and the 2010 series. 67.241.25.16 (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment No need for disambig page. The 1967-68 run is "season five", numbered like all twenty-six seasons before the revival, and the 2009 episodes are definitely not a series and have never been considered a fifth one (see The Writer's Tale, where RTD "turns down a fifth series" a couple of years before). Additionally, Moffat has gone on record to say he only called it Series 1 to BBC execs to get the expanded budget that the first series of a BBC1 show would get - he'd have got less for calling it something else. Tphi (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


Strongly support Please, stop this ridiculous argument over Series 5, Series 1, Series 31. For goodness sake, it is the FIFTH series of the revived series, it just is, if the producers wanted it to be called Series DuckSh*t would you? No. This is not Series 1. It is 31 overall, or 5 of the new series. It goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5! DVD's confirm it, BBC websites and everything confirms it, but just because one man wants it to be series one as he can't stand the fact that he did not create this show is barbaric, if Matt Smith left this year and was replaced next year, would it then be called series one. So Series 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 1, 2? WTH? Why? 2010 Series, sort of works, but it is Series Five. Not 1, not ducksh*t, FIVE! This is suppose to be an encyclopedia, right? Then why is it riddled with wrong, confusing information?
Strong support The series is widely known as Series 5 by the general public. While some production documents from the BBC may refer to it as Series 1, any mention you find of the a series number on a credible website will not refer to it as "Series 1" and probably will not refer to it as "Series 31". The most common and most recognizable name for the article would be Doctor Who (Series 5). The Filmaker (talk) 04:31, 25 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.

Oppose Calling the 2010 series, series 5 makes as much sense as calling Batman Begins, Batman 5. The 2010 series is not series 5 because it is not even technically the fifth season, that is the one that starred Patrick Troughton in 1967-68. To continue the season count from the Russell T Davies era when the BBC has given a brand new season count for the Steven Moffat team and in seperation from pre-2005 Doctor Who makes absolutely no sense. So what if series 5 is what the public and the fans decided to call the 2010 season, it is the BBC not them that makes Doctor Who. This is an encyclopedia which is meant to deliver accuracy not to decide on things based on popular perceptions.--The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • The discussion is closed, below (though if you really want to, you can re-open it in a new section — though I wouldn't advise it). But it's worth pointing out that your last sentence is inaccurate, at least as far as article naming is concerned. See WP:COMMONNAME, which says, "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." Most reliable sources (with the sole exception of Doctor Who Magazine) are now using "Series 5"; whether it makes sense to you or not is irrelevant. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My position on this is as valid as anyone else's and I take offence with your comment that the series 5 reasoning does not make sense is irrelevant. I noticed that you have failed to address the analogy with Batman Begins which I bought up. I find the reasoning with the use of the Series Five description is based on laziness and nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise. "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name."....and people wonder why Wikipedia is not taken seriously with its accuracy. -The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes your position is valid, but the discussion had been closed after a concensus had been reached below. The above part of the discussion should have been marked closed as well, so sorry for the confusion. Please feel free to open a new discussion if you feel the need to do so. (Marking the above as closed as of now). DonQuixote (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Opening the discussion again is a waste of time. The BBC themselves are marketing it as "Series 5"...discussion over really. magnius (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the "season" names for the first 26 *series* derive entirely from one episode guide from the 1980s! They're not official in any way either. Nor were they ever used in marketing. The series were always called "series" in the UK Regarding "common" usage, common usage places The Five Doctors in the 1983 series (technically incorrect). Since "common usage" is now official Wikipedia policy, I've edited the "List of Doctor Who episodes". Frankly I'm not sure there are any reliable sources other than Doctor Who Magazine regarding this kind of stuff. 67.241.25.16 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC are currently calling the classic series 'seasons' [12], the new ones series. What they were called doesn't matter, terminology changes. On the basis of the above link and because you didn't quote your source putting the five doctors in season 20 I've reverted your change, I you have conflicting information please discuss it in the talk page of List of Doctor Who episodes. Edgepedia (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

BARB URLs

All the BARB sources for viewing figures seem to have the second half cut off. Anyone know what the exact URLs should be?

Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 17:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The BARB site is an absolute nightmare, I assume you can get better data with a relevant subscription. Without it access to the form to get the results can be found at http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyTopProgrammes? - there appears to be no easy way of getting an url to the exact results you want though (or if there is, I have never found it). AlexanderJBateman (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! (Pity, I hate paywalls...) Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 17:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


Final Ratings

At the moment the list of ratings only show that of the BBC One broadcast, but with the exception of 1.3 'Victory of the Daleks' all episodes were simulcast on BBC HD and these got from 0.4 to 0.7 million extra viewers. I think these ratings should reflect the BBC One and BBC HD ratings together. For example, if there was no BBC HD channel the extra 0.5 million viewers of 'The Eleventh Hour' would have watched it on BBC One. I think, in situations like these, where a program is broadcast simultaneously on two channels, the combined ratings of both should be counted as the final ratings, and not just BBC One. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.142.135 (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I have not worked on this article very much at all, but the final ratings should reflect the totals of BBC One and BBC HD found on BARB and in each individual article. I have not checked to see if these are incorrect. Glimmer721 talk 00:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Suspected Copyright Violation removed

I've just removed the episode summaries as these were a direct copy of [13], which is clearly marked copyright 2010. I've haven't time now to look at the rest of the article, or restore the orginal summaries. Edgepedia (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Which came first, though? Sites do use our material quite often... Sceptre (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
WHAT? I wrote all of those myself! Not kidding! All by myself! Can I please put them back? What do I do? I wrote them like last month but I've never seen that site before, I swear, I wrote them all from the top of my head! I put the first summary here, 2-5 here, 6 and 7 here, 8-11 here, edits to 11 and full summary of 12 here, and the finale here. I know that's from October/November 2011 and that post SAYS it's from 2010 (that wasn't necessarily when it was last updated...) but the series 6 one looks like it was copied from an earlier version of the series 6 article. Sorry I'm freaking out, but I've been working hard on this article to get it to FL and I have it up for PR. Honestly, I did not directly copy anything! I've never seen that site before! I've also rewritten pretty much the rest of the article so if you find anything, I did not copy it! Glimmer721 talk 02:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
If you wrote it, and your prepared to swear to that, then just restore it Jasonfward (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This looks above my pay grade so I've raised it at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2011_December_13#Copyright_problem:Doctor_Who_.28series_5.29, which looks a suitable place. The problem with just restoring it is that it is likely to be removed again. Edgepedia (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Glimmer, can I apologize for my edit comment which should have said it looked like a copyright violation. Hopefully someone will look at this soon and come to a judgement, and with sifficient evidence to get blogger to remove the wikipedia copy! I've looked at www.archive.org but the page is not cached there. Edgepedia (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to closing admin or clerk: I have marked the series 5 article as a backwardscopy of this blog as [14] is dated September 1, 2011 and contains text that was on that article the previous day Edgepedia (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
It's okay, I'd like to apologize for how I came across...I was actually quite worried and stressed because I didn't know what it meant for me or the article and if there was any way I could prove that I wrote it. Thanks for looking into this. Glimmer721 talk 22:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the blog has copied other wikipedia articles, and Glimmer's entirely believable protestations, I'm going to resolve this on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems as "no copyright violation". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Mkativerata. I've restored the text I removed. Edgepedia (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who (series 5)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 03:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Will be reviewing this one soon. Ruby 2010/2013 03:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments
  • When did Russell T Davies leave the show? Was he at all involved with the 5th series? The lead's mention of him doesn't really make this clear.
  • "Though it is the fifth series since the show's revival in 2005 and the thirty-first since it began in 1963, it was produced and intended to be marketed as "Series One"." - I'm not quite sure I understand this. Wasn't this produced as Series One?
    • Yes, it was. How do you suggest putting that without getting too wordy? I haven't found anything on specifically why they dropped going for Series One or why they did in the first place (in this interview Moffat says the budget would have been bigger if it was series 1, but he doesn't say why they dropped it). Glimmer721 talk
  • Hmmmm it is odd that Moffat went for "Series One", but after further reading, I think what you wrote makes sense. No need for changes. Ruby 2010/2013 05:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You should add a link to Adam Smith (director) if you feel there is a likely chance of its creation
    • It seems he's mostly directed music videos and a few episodes of Skins and Little Dorrit. I'm not sure that warrants notability, but I'll surely add it if the article is created. Glimmer721 talk 00:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

More to come! Ruby 2010/2013 23:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  • The Smith/Gillan image would look better if it were bigger
    • Increased from 150px to 2000px. Glimmer721 talk 16:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Other influences included the "an element of a professor" and "big, dusty boots like Indiana Jones"." - typo
  • You mention Matthew Graham a bit out of nowhere; perhaps at least explain his relationship to the series and/or Moffat?
  • Add a link to "Vincent and the Doctor" for the writing section that discusses Richard Curtis
    • Mentioned the title of the episode, but didn't link it since non of the other episodes mentioned in that section are linked. Glimmer721 talk 16:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "The new theme angered fans" -> "The new theme angered some fans" - seems more appropriate, as surely not all of them were angered!
    • Good point; I sort of stole that from the title of the source. Glimmer721 talk 16:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • A mostly well-written article, except for this:
  • "The Doctor was also equipped with his sonic screwdriver, but as this was often used as skeleton key the game employes the solving of puzzles to advance instead of simply using the screwdriver." - It's not quite clear what you're trying to convey
    • Added a few more words; let me know if "skeleton key" (or anything else) should be explained. Glimmer721 talk 16:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's clear you've spent a lot of time and energy building up this article. Just a few more minor issues, and then it will be good to go! I rather enjoyed this series, and found reading about it interesting. Ruby 2010/2013 05:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I've fixed everything. Hoping to take this to FAC sometime in the future. Glimmer721 talk 16:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it definitely has FAC potential! Passing for GA. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 03:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Darvill / Rory

So how many episodes in this series did he appear in? Because the article has recently been changed from 6 to 7 but only source I can find (IMDB) says 8. So can we find a good source and get this right once and for all? Jasonfward (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

From memory, he appears in:
  • Eleventh Hour
  • The Vampires of Venice (companion)
  • Amy's Choice (companion)
  • The Hungry Earth (companion)
  • Cold Blood (companion)
  • The Pandorica Opens (companion)
  • The Big Bang (companion)
I count that as 7, and the plot summaries in the article corroborate that information. It's possible that IMDb includes the Christmas Special as part of the series, or a flashback in one of the episodes between Cold Blood and The Pandorica Opens. I can't remember if such a flashback exists, but it's possible. As a character in the narrative though, I count 7 appearances.  drewmunn  talk  13:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I have been through the episode of this series and I count that he has been in 7 episodes, and was a companion in 6 of them. (marked on the list above) 13thDoctor93 (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. No source is really required when the primary can be used more reliably!  drewmunn  talk  14:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who_series_5/Archive_1&oldid=1216222197"