Talk:Doctor Who series 9/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Another RfC: Episode Groupings
I think we need to stop arguing over the theoretical hierarchy of knowledge/authority, it is not source based and therefore cannot be used by either side to justify and back-up their argument. We need this discussion to be purely source based, state what a source actually states, not what a vague statement could mean. It is my view that DWM is very open to interpretation, but that is not source based, just like assuming who the official website is sourcing, we don't know who they are sourcing, but they are as reliable as a source can get and it is not open to interpretation, the official website has remained constant in their classification of episodes, whereas DWM has changed their view several times (one time (issue #489) they took a view which was not representative of official designation, referring to TGWD and TWWL as a two-parter), an indicating that it is more their opinion than actual fact, something with DWM is we don't know what Moffat said to them, for all we know they could be misinterpreting him, we can't be sure, while we have a statement from issue #493, that was before the episodes aired and Moffat was likely being purposely vague to keep people in the dark about the episodes, we don't have a post-broadcast statement from Moffat, issue #495 does not quote him, and therefore it cannot be used on the grounds that Moffat shares that view, even if he does, Moffat's personal opinion doesn't necessarily constitute official designation. Fan4Life (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, please don't modify a closed discussion. Also, please don't re-open a closed discussion but rather begin a new one in a new section (like this). Secondly, it seems like you're beating a dead horse. DonQuixote (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK. I am not going to give up on this which it seems you want me to. I have valid and official sources which are actually better and more reliable than DWM, so I have a case. Fan4Life (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Seriously, Fan4Life? You've made multiple discussions on this, continuously closed and re-opened discussions (also noted, participants of a discussion aren't meant to be the ones closing it), played musical chairs with the discussion over at least three talk pages, submitted multiple RfC's, said yourself that you're happy with them being listed as singular episodes, and you haven't gotten any closer than when you started. Nothing's changed here, so nothing's going to change in the views you're given. This has now just boiled down to a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexTheWhovian: It is not a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as I have multiple sources that are of at least equal if not higher reliability. You are attempting to write off my argument and force me to quit based on how long I have been arguing it and my refusal to give it up, now that is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I moved the discussion to the main Doctor Who page on your suggestion then moved it back here after another editor pointed out that the discussion was not relevant to that page, so it is not exactly fair to criticise my actions. My past actions to do with this discussion do not discredit my argument, discussions are supposed to be source based, disparaging an editor who opposes is you and pressuring them to give up is not acceptable behaviour, so if you can't stick to sources and be civil when discussing this then I suggest you don't discuss this at all. I will continue this discussion until there is a satisfactory outcome, I am not going to give up, especially seeing as no source/fact based counter argument has been put forward, so far nothing but opinion and rhetoric has been put forward, it seems that the only reason for leaving them how they are is that it is the status quo. Fan4Life (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not forcing you to quit. The term "satisfactory outcome" is your own opinion, as there is consensus between every editor thus far (as consensus does not mean unanimity). But Wikipedia is not a place to keep changing your mind - either close the discussion, or stick with it. Don't flit between the two over and over again. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexTheWhovian: It is not every editor, or all but one, I am not the only editor who disagrees with the way they are listed in this discussion, other editors also disagree with the way the episodes are currently listed. By satisfactory outcome I meant either I gain consensus or I am provided with a comprehensive and source based case for using DWM that truly disqualifies my sources. Fan4Life (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused @Fan4Life: you quote me and then take the quote down? I see this debate about two parters is still going on! If this is what you strongly believe @Fan4Life: then you go ahead and argue your case as you seem to have evidence for it! I havent the time to invest in discussing it though, but my opinion is that 'The Girl Who Died' and 'The Woman Who Lived' should be considered a two parter as 'Face the Raven', 'Heaven Sent' and 'Hell Bent' should be considered a 3 parter. This is my final opinion on the matter. Lotrjw (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fan4Life: You are the only editor on the multi-parter side that has at least attempted to argue about the sources - nobody else has. The two people you referenced to support your argument here and then removed, while both did personally agree with your point of view - if I go and look - one actually agreed with current consensus and the other has only stated their personal opinion. Meanwhile, several editors have discussed the merits of every other source raised and come to the same consensus. The consensus is actually very clear here - in spite of it being clear you are not dropping the WP:STICK. If you feel there are no source or fact base arguments - I can only recommend you reread all of the discussions but this time WP:LISTEN - because the sources and facts are there - every step of the way - and my purpose in life is unfortunately not to keep repeating them for only your benefit. Dresken (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would like an explanation for why Rachel Talalay calling the episodes a two-parter in video at a later date than when the magazine was released is not an acceptable source, especially considering that the statement is backed up by the website, the argument about the hierarchy cannot be used as it is original research, it is unsourced, it is not our place to arrange the hierarchy, nor are we allowed to, we must only use sources. The only arguments against this source have been given are that she is lower in the hierarchy, which is original research and therefore cannot be used to disqualify it, and that she is giving her opinion, which is interpretation at the very least, she doesn't say that she thinks the episodes are a two-parter or that she sees the episodes as a two-parter, she say they ARE a two-parter, it is worded as being fact, not opinion. There is no reason why an explicit statement by Rachel Talalay at a later date should be overruled by a (most likely purposely) vague statement from before broadcast by Steven Moffat and the view of half of the DWM team that they say he approved, without quotes might I add, at an earlier date. I have two/three explicit sources, one of which is more recent than DWM, the standalone side has one vague and debatable source. Fan4Life (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fan4Life: You are the only editor on the multi-parter side that has at least attempted to argue about the sources - nobody else has. The two people you referenced to support your argument here and then removed, while both did personally agree with your point of view - if I go and look - one actually agreed with current consensus and the other has only stated their personal opinion. Meanwhile, several editors have discussed the merits of every other source raised and come to the same consensus. The consensus is actually very clear here - in spite of it being clear you are not dropping the WP:STICK. If you feel there are no source or fact base arguments - I can only recommend you reread all of the discussions but this time WP:LISTEN - because the sources and facts are there - every step of the way - and my purpose in life is unfortunately not to keep repeating them for only your benefit. Dresken (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused @Fan4Life: you quote me and then take the quote down? I see this debate about two parters is still going on! If this is what you strongly believe @Fan4Life: then you go ahead and argue your case as you seem to have evidence for it! I havent the time to invest in discussing it though, but my opinion is that 'The Girl Who Died' and 'The Woman Who Lived' should be considered a two parter as 'Face the Raven', 'Heaven Sent' and 'Hell Bent' should be considered a 3 parter. This is my final opinion on the matter. Lotrjw (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexTheWhovian: It is not every editor, or all but one, I am not the only editor who disagrees with the way they are listed in this discussion, other editors also disagree with the way the episodes are currently listed. By satisfactory outcome I meant either I gain consensus or I am provided with a comprehensive and source based case for using DWM that truly disqualifies my sources. Fan4Life (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not forcing you to quit. The term "satisfactory outcome" is your own opinion, as there is consensus between every editor thus far (as consensus does not mean unanimity). But Wikipedia is not a place to keep changing your mind - either close the discussion, or stick with it. Don't flit between the two over and over again. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexTheWhovian: It is not a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as I have multiple sources that are of at least equal if not higher reliability. You are attempting to write off my argument and force me to quit based on how long I have been arguing it and my refusal to give it up, now that is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I moved the discussion to the main Doctor Who page on your suggestion then moved it back here after another editor pointed out that the discussion was not relevant to that page, so it is not exactly fair to criticise my actions. My past actions to do with this discussion do not discredit my argument, discussions are supposed to be source based, disparaging an editor who opposes is you and pressuring them to give up is not acceptable behaviour, so if you can't stick to sources and be civil when discussing this then I suggest you don't discuss this at all. I will continue this discussion until there is a satisfactory outcome, I am not going to give up, especially seeing as no source/fact based counter argument has been put forward, so far nothing but opinion and rhetoric has been put forward, it seems that the only reason for leaving them how they are is that it is the status quo. Fan4Life (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Seriously, Fan4Life? You've made multiple discussions on this, continuously closed and re-opened discussions (also noted, participants of a discussion aren't meant to be the ones closing it), played musical chairs with the discussion over at least three talk pages, submitted multiple RfC's, said yourself that you're happy with them being listed as singular episodes, and you haven't gotten any closer than when you started. Nothing's changed here, so nothing's going to change in the views you're given. This has now just boiled down to a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK. I am not going to give up on this which it seems you want me to. I have valid and official sources which are actually better and more reliable than DWM, so I have a case. Fan4Life (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The explanation was original research, therefore it is not acceptable. Also, rejecting it is basically saying that the person who directed the episodes is uninformed/misinformed and doesn't know what she is talking about, which simply isn't true. Rejecting the official website is basically saying that it is wrong, that it isn't reliable, however that is just not true, plus it has been used before and you can't cherry pick when a particular source is reliable and when it is not. The argument about DWM having been used for previous series is not true and pointless, all groupings prior to Series 9 have been completely clear cut and agreed upon by all sources. DWM has gone against the official website (which is more reliable) more than once, it at one time referred the TGWD and TWWL as a two-parter which was not supported by any official sources at the time, back then DWM was not an acceptable source, and like I said, you can't just cherry pick when a source is reliable and when it is not. Fan4Life (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- The so called source for them not being linked is the sentence: "we've decided not to combine [the stories]" (emph added) because "we didn't want to short change readers by forcing you to give a combined score". the phrase 'really, wiki?' comes to mind. 'We've split them so that you have the option to give them different scores for our unofficial rankings of episodes' is not a reliable source, it is pure opinion. If they are going to be grouped like this, find a better source. However, I suspect that their isn't one, because I haven't seen anything else group it like that [and if i'm wrong and there is a btter one, change the source to that rather than a vague POV line about ranking stories]. DWM calls the first three stories something different ot the official website, and wiki quite rightly ignores that and goes with the official website. Why is it different here? 213.104.176.176 (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Doctor Who Magazine sourced its information to Steven Moffat. The website sourced its information on one occassion to the director of one of the debated episode groupings Rachel Talalay. We have provided all the evidence to back up both these sourcings, and we are following Steven Moffat's word in the matter. Doctor Who Magazine is a reliable source as is the website, so it is a matter of preference and on account of the named sources the showrunner trumps the director by consensus. If you can provide new information sourced back to Steven Moffat or to Chris Chibnall who will soon be the authority on such matters then things will be different, but for now there isn't anything else to add other than bringing up the same arguments over and over again.
- As for the original three story titles, those were chosen on account of the naming of the production team of the time, rather than the decision making of the current team. That is part of their in-house style to represent the wishes of the team directly involved in the production of said stories and not of later teams coming back on top of it (they have also on occasion broken "Season 14" up into two separate series when referring directly to its production as it was produced and marketed at the time as two separate half length series). As Steven Moffat's team is still in charge, we can further back this as being the wishes of the team at this time as it was at the time of production (which is what Doctor Who Magazine follows). Ruffice98 (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are not following Moffat's word, you are following DWM's word, they do not have quotes, we do not know what he said, you can't say that you are going by what Moffat has said when you don't even know what he said. You can't just say that showrunner trumps director, that is not sourced, they are both part of the production team and worked together constantly on the episodes, they are both valid, you are basically saying that Talalay doesn't know what she is talking about, that she is misinformed, which just isn't true. It is not our place to rank sources based on anything but how close they are to the production team and their content, and DWM is inferior to the official website on both counts. Fan4Life (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest that everyone chill a bit and just step away for a while. Wait for more sources. DonQuixote (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid we can't do that, there simply won't be any more sources at this point, we have to go by the sources we already have. Fan4Life (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- At least chill out and take a step back for a bit. Drink some ale. Read a book. DonQuixote (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I can't just leave this discussion, right now their is an even split, there are 3 editors on the separate side and three editors (including myself) on the multi-parter side, we need to be very attentive of the discussion in order to reach consensus, leaving the discussion for days is not the answer. Fan4Life (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- At least chill out and take a step back for a bit. Drink some ale. Read a book. DonQuixote (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid we can't do that, there simply won't be any more sources at this point, we have to go by the sources we already have. Fan4Life (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest that everyone chill a bit and just step away for a while. Wait for more sources. DonQuixote (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are not following Moffat's word, you are following DWM's word, they do not have quotes, we do not know what he said, you can't say that you are going by what Moffat has said when you don't even know what he said. You can't just say that showrunner trumps director, that is not sourced, they are both part of the production team and worked together constantly on the episodes, they are both valid, you are basically saying that Talalay doesn't know what she is talking about, that she is misinformed, which just isn't true. It is not our place to rank sources based on anything but how close they are to the production team and their content, and DWM is inferior to the official website on both counts. Fan4Life (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- As for the original three story titles, those were chosen on account of the naming of the production team of the time, rather than the decision making of the current team. That is part of their in-house style to represent the wishes of the team directly involved in the production of said stories and not of later teams coming back on top of it (they have also on occasion broken "Season 14" up into two separate series when referring directly to its production as it was produced and marketed at the time as two separate half length series). As Steven Moffat's team is still in charge, we can further back this as being the wishes of the team at this time as it was at the time of production (which is what Doctor Who Magazine follows). Ruffice98 (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Ruffice98 - as I said, if there IS a better source than "we did this so you can give them a different score" (which I'm not sure counts as a source, let alone a reliable one) then put that in, so if Moffat really did say that they should be grouped like this, then quote that as the source. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. Moffat can't be quoted, and without quotes from Moffat the source is redundant, them stating Moffat to be their source at the same time as using language that indicates that it is purely their own opinion isn't good enough. Even if Moffat did indeed say this, it was under completely informal circumstances and therefore would not have been speaking officially. How can we possibly know that he didn't just give them the greenlight to list them separately in the season survey but they misinterpreted it as being his view on the episodes? The point is that we don't know what he said, or even if he said anything at all, and we don't know if what he said was interpreted and conveyed correctly by DWM. Fan4Life (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- The answer is that we don't know, but they are a reliable source so we have to take their word at face value. Doctor Who Magazine has yet to contradict itself so remains consistent throughout. Perhaps it's a huge conspiracy between Steven Moffat and Tom Spilsbury to wind up Wikipedia editors for their personal enjoyment (the latter has admitted to enjoying watching the debates going on here on this talk page) but without a source to confirm that this was a set up you are into original research territory. The matter will resolve itself in time, there is no deadline. Is it really so bad to leave it for Doctor Who Magazine to repeat the point in future as they no doubt will? Then we can see if its single parters, a two parter or maybe even if Capaldi was right and its a three parter. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Here at DWM, we've been arguing about all sorts of things - and not just whether to count Face the Raven, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent as one story, two, or three. In the end we went with three - partly because I'm in charge, partly because Steven Moffat agreed when we asked him how he thought we should arrange the Season Survey form, and partly because I want to see if we really do have any influence over Wikipedia." - Tom Spilsbury, Doctor Who Magazine 495. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- The answer is that we don't know, but they are a reliable source so we have to take their word at face value. Doctor Who Magazine has yet to contradict itself so remains consistent throughout. Perhaps it's a huge conspiracy between Steven Moffat and Tom Spilsbury to wind up Wikipedia editors for their personal enjoyment (the latter has admitted to enjoying watching the debates going on here on this talk page) but without a source to confirm that this was a set up you are into original research territory. The matter will resolve itself in time, there is no deadline. Is it really so bad to leave it for Doctor Who Magazine to repeat the point in future as they no doubt will? Then we can see if its single parters, a two parter or maybe even if Capaldi was right and its a three parter. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- The Series DVD guide (titled series 9 facts) also lists them like this. there are slashes in only three cases (magicians apprentice/witch's familiar, under the lake/before the flood, zygon invasion/inversion) - the others have their own entries. 2.223.172.229 (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Think we can pretty much resolve this now, the web team have been putting out a list of stories, and have just labeled the first Eccelston two parter as two single parters via their Twitter feed. Since that story is not in any way considered as such and they will no doubt continue to break up future two parters, it can now be safely said that not only was the two parter comment not on behalf of the web team but not their position either (and even if it is, they are using a different system from our own listings anyway). They certainly are a reliable source, but aren't being consistent with any other source here undermining their position on this matter.
Personally, I'd say any source from the web team is second hand, it can be trusted but try to find who provided them with the information as we now know their stance in future reports on story structuring as they are using a different system from everyone else. Ruffice98 (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment What's the question? Are RfC-ers really meant to spend half an hour working that out? Pincrete (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- The question regards the validity of a source which says this series of Doctor Who consists of three two part stories and the remainder are standalone episodes, as another source via the official tie in website claims that two of these standalone stories are actually two episodes of the same story, citing the director of these two episodes, whereas the source used cites the writer, executive producer and showrunner (all one person). Since then another source has appeared backing the current article structure and the website has produced another list of serials that goes against every other source available further throwing their position into doubt. Ruffice98 (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- The website isn't a tie in, plus they aren't just sourcing the director, it doesn't say that anywhere, they aren't using a source, as they are a primary source. It is not fair to say that DWM are sourcing Moffat as there are no quotes, we don't know what he said, or if he said anything at all, and we don't know if it was interpreted correctly by DWM, we can't just take their word for it, they are a third-party source, we wouldn't take the word of any other third-party source without quotes. What other source has appeared backing the current listing? You have not provided any links, or even named said source. Fan4Life (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- they are a primary source - wrong, the Primary source is the episode itself, in this case the website and DWM would both be secondary sources. Even if you were right, WP:SECONDARY sources are often preferred anyway. ...sourcing Moffat as there are no quotes... we wouldn't take the word of any other third-party source without quotes - wrong, direct quotes and paraphrasing are both acceptable ways of quoting someone - and are used all the time. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- But they aren't doing either, they are not paraphrasing, it is all their own words. Fan4Life (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly writing something in your own words is the definition of paraphrasing. But I think you are trying to say DWM are only stating their opinion and not actually paraphrasing Moffat at all. If DWM was an academic paper, it would be very poor manner of paraphrasing someone, but still paraphrasing none the less. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Writing completely in your own words is not remotely paraphrasing, paraphrasing is rewording something to express its meaning, not saying something in your own words and name-dropping someone with authority to justify your opinion and present it as being fact. Fan4Life (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly writing something in your own words is the definition of paraphrasing. But I think you are trying to say DWM are only stating their opinion and not actually paraphrasing Moffat at all. If DWM was an academic paper, it would be very poor manner of paraphrasing someone, but still paraphrasing none the less. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- But they aren't doing either, they are not paraphrasing, it is all their own words. Fan4Life (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- they are a primary source - wrong, the Primary source is the episode itself, in this case the website and DWM would both be secondary sources. Even if you were right, WP:SECONDARY sources are often preferred anyway. ...sourcing Moffat as there are no quotes... we wouldn't take the word of any other third-party source without quotes - wrong, direct quotes and paraphrasing are both acceptable ways of quoting someone - and are used all the time. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The website isn't a tie in, plus they aren't just sourcing the director, it doesn't say that anywhere, they aren't using a source, as they are a primary source. It is not fair to say that DWM are sourcing Moffat as there are no quotes, we don't know what he said, or if he said anything at all, and we don't know if it was interpreted correctly by DWM, we can't just take their word for it, they are a third-party source, we wouldn't take the word of any other third-party source without quotes. What other source has appeared backing the current listing? You have not provided any links, or even named said source. Fan4Life (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- They sourced their information, so it is reliable. Your entire argument is based on the idea that DWM has lied and attached Steven Moffat's name to look credible after the fact, which is a very serious accusation. Problem with that is you have no source on the matter, so you are performing original research by making that assumption. Unless something contradictory appears to undermine them nothing can happen, and so far the only ones with an undermined position are the web team who appear to be listing every 21st century episode as an individual story, both in their episode guide and their current story run down. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Something contradictory has come up, Rachel Talalay calling the episodes a two-parter. The official website is made by the BBC, DWM is merely endorsed by it, saying that DWM is more reliable than the BBC itself is ludicrous. DWM were not commenting on the official designation of the episodes, they repeatedly said "we" and "we've". I am not saying that they were lying, I am just saying that there sourcing is not acceptable as they neither quote nor paraphrase Moffat. Fan4Life (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- They sourced their information, so it is reliable. Your entire argument is based on the idea that DWM has lied and attached Steven Moffat's name to look credible after the fact, which is a very serious accusation. Problem with that is you have no source on the matter, so you are performing original research by making that assumption. Unless something contradictory appears to undermine them nothing can happen, and so far the only ones with an undermined position are the web team who appear to be listing every 21st century episode as an individual story, both in their episode guide and their current story run down. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are the only one keeping this going. BOTH are considered reliable sources and so the information from both should be considered, one has sourced a director the other the showrunner. We by consensus are backing the showrunner. The web team are not following the official story structure within their own site, should we tear up the current structuring because they are better conne ted than DWM according to you? Everything we currently have comes via DWM from the showrunners so should we abolish multi part stories entirely post-2005 because that's what the BBC say? Ruffice98 (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- The website isn't just sourcing a director, it doesn't say that is their source anywhere, that is made-up. How are the web team not following official story structure? They merely give episodes their own pages, they do the same with episodes that are labelled Part 1 and Part 2. You are making things up and misinterpreting things just to suit you. Please make sure you arguments are sourced, not made-up or interpretations. You are not by consensus backing the showrunner, that would only be the case if DWM had quoted him or at the very least paraphrased him, however they did neither, so in actuality you by consensus are backing DWM (a third-party source) over the official website (a secondary source) and many other sources, you are backing a source which is blatantly based far more on opinion than actual facts and is not making a comment on the official designation of the albums, it isn't reporting, it is stating their own opinion, as shown by frequent use of "we"/"we've" and using the word "consider". You have contradicted yourself, you say both sources are reliable but then go on to drag the official website. DWM are on the outside looking in and therefore have to use sources, whereas the official website is on the inside and are a source in themselves. DWM has a track record of taking unofficial positions on episode designation, they at one time (issue #488/#489) classed TGWD and TWWL as a two-parter which at the time was not backed by any official source, showing that they are not reliable, we can't overlook a source being incorrect and going against official designation. DWM us the BBC as a source, and the official website is made by the BBC, the official website reports things first and third-party sources (DWM included) report based on the official website, official press releases appear on the official website first. The official website can't possibly be wrong, you are saying that a third-party source which has previously gone against official designation knows better than the official website, which is ludicrous and unacceptable. Fan4Life (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are the only one keeping this going. BOTH are considered reliable sources and so the information from both should be considered, one has sourced a director the other the showrunner. We by consensus are backing the showrunner. The web team are not following the official story structure within their own site, should we tear up the current structuring because they are better conne ted than DWM according to you? Everything we currently have comes via DWM from the showrunners so should we abolish multi part stories entirely post-2005 because that's what the BBC say? Ruffice98 (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm getting fed up with this so this is my final word on the matter. They have quite clearly numbered the stories on a run down via their feed through Twitter being run by the web team listing everything in the Eccelston series as single part stories. So their view is invalid in this matter, as they are not following the official guidelines. So that leaves Rachel Talalay or DWM (with consultation of Steven Moffat).
Even if the web team call it a two parter, they are also calling commonly recognised two parters, single parters, so to source them here will tear up the rest of the listing. As has also been said, the DVDs list them individually. The series pages on Wikipedia are structured based on these as their source in terms of which episodes are listed together. This is also a reputable source from the BBC (in this case BBC Worldwide, instead of their web team), and is sourced already for this page. They can be followed securely without any doubt.
With a second source backing up DWM from within the BBC this should be enough to end this, yet you refuse to listen. Please accept defeat, because if the BBC's word demands superiority you have it through the DVD listings. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. There is consensus between editors here, and per WP:CON, Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Are we seriously going to take the phrase "WE have split them so you can give them different scores in our unofficial pole" written by someone who has admitted that that they did this "because I want to see if we really do have any influence over Wikipedia" as a source? It is quite clear that this is only an opinion designed to get his view on wiki. The whole point of the 'reliable source' rule is that Wikipedia is backed up by fact, not opinion - using this as a source goes against this principle. It is sad that wiki is able to be tricked in this way purely because "a better source doesn't exist" 213.104.176.176 (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're twisting the words of everything that's been posted here. The only people arguing is you and one registered editor, against the dozen-odd that have argued this over the past few months. There is consensus. This ought to be closed. It's going in circles. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- There have not been a dozen odd arguing your side, there have been 4 or 5. In this particular discussion there are 4 arguing your side and 2 arguing in favour of listing them as two-parters, that is far from consensus, 2/3 of the users discussing (particularly in a discussion with only a handful of editors) is not consensus. @Ruffice98: The team who work on the website are different to the team in charge of the official Twitter account so that point is defunct, plus they are not trying to say that the episodes are standalone, they are merely doing a tweet for each episode, they aren't making a comment on the status of the episodes, they are fully aware that they are two-parters. There is not a single source within the BBC that backs-up DWM, the DVDs list episode by episode regardless of groupings, DWE groups them, and so does everything else within the BBC, only outside the BBC do views on the episodes differ. DWM is outside the BBC, the website is within the BBC, it is obvious which one is more reliable, the source within the BBC. Fan4Life (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're twisting the words of everything that's been posted here. The only people arguing is you and one registered editor, against the dozen-odd that have argued this over the past few months. There is consensus. This ought to be closed. It's going in circles. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Are we seriously going to take the phrase "WE have split them so you can give them different scores in our unofficial pole" written by someone who has admitted that that they did this "because I want to see if we really do have any influence over Wikipedia" as a source? It is quite clear that this is only an opinion designed to get his view on wiki. The whole point of the 'reliable source' rule is that Wikipedia is backed up by fact, not opinion - using this as a source goes against this principle. It is sad that wiki is able to be tricked in this way purely because "a better source doesn't exist" 213.104.176.176 (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
Sorry to go back on my word, but since I've been dragged back in I'll have to repeat myself, there is a story listing given within the DVD set that lists them as presented here. That is another perfectly valid source backing our position and is already being used here to provide series structure. Sfop now because you are just telling lies to keep your fight going. Please stop now. Ruffice98 (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is just getting ridiculous. I will be asking an administrator to close this. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Let's put aside for a moment our own feelings on how the episodes should be grouped, and look at this objectively. In a completely hypothetical scenario, should wikipedia be using something which states it is an opinion and treat it as fact? I personally don't think so. As I said above, this to me goes against the principle of the 'reliable source rule'. Now let's apply that to here. Don't get me wrong - I am not arguing that DWM is not reliable. I get DWM myslef, and it is great for exclusive news and facts about upcoming episodes. The one out yesterday has some great sources on the upcoming season 10 - and as they are facts there is no reason to ignore them. But as I said above, when a line makes it clear that the ordering is only a matter of opinion, why treat that as a fact? I would say wiki is getting tricked by an opinion made to look like fact, but it's not even made to look like fact! - it's made to look like an opinion, tells you it is an opinion, and tells you exactly what the goal of it is - to get it listed this way on wiki. Surely wiki needs to apply some common sense and say "sorry, opinions are not facts - therefore not reliable sources, we're not falling for an attempt to influence us" It doesn't mean we can't still use DWM - it's actual news sections that present facts can still be used - but opinions should not be treated as fact. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly, Tom Spilsbury said himself he was doing it partially to see if DWM has influence over Wikipedia and partially because he is in charge (meaning it is opinion), he was not commenting on the official designation, Moffat was probably in on it, hence he was name-dropped, but there were no quotes. @Ruffice98: Don't you dare accuse me of lying, the only person here who is lying is you, you made up who the website was sourcing. Unless you can provide evidence of the booklet saying this, it can't be used as a source. Nothing I have said is not true. @AlexTheWhovian: You can't just have the discussion closed because you don't want your opinion challenged, which it is clear is why you want it closed. Fan4Life (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Let's put aside for a moment our own feelings on how the episodes should be grouped, and look at this objectively. In a completely hypothetical scenario, should wikipedia be using something which states it is an opinion and treat it as fact? I personally don't think so. As I said above, this to me goes against the principle of the 'reliable source rule'. Now let's apply that to here. Don't get me wrong - I am not arguing that DWM is not reliable. I get DWM myslef, and it is great for exclusive news and facts about upcoming episodes. The one out yesterday has some great sources on the upcoming season 10 - and as they are facts there is no reason to ignore them. But as I said above, when a line makes it clear that the ordering is only a matter of opinion, why treat that as a fact? I would say wiki is getting tricked by an opinion made to look like fact, but it's not even made to look like fact! - it's made to look like an opinion, tells you it is an opinion, and tells you exactly what the goal of it is - to get it listed this way on wiki. Surely wiki needs to apply some common sense and say "sorry, opinions are not facts - therefore not reliable sources, we're not falling for an attempt to influence us" It doesn't mean we can't still use DWM - it's actual news sections that present facts can still be used - but opinions should not be treated as fact. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, the source has been given, explained and what it states explained in full (that the three stories listed are two parters with the remainder as single part stories). This is a completely acceptable source, and shows how low this particular editor is stooping here. I hope this is genuinely a misunderstanding on their part and not anything malicious, but this is really getting out of hand. We were asked for another source, one that could not be disputed as simply opinion, we provided it and now they demand something else? This is well and truly out of hand, can someone please stop this? Any further attacks on our source without genuine evidence is frankly just picking a fight for the sake of it. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fan4life - can YOU please link to the where the Doctor who website has the stories linked as a two parter, because I can't see it. I on the other hand CAN provide the DVD "THE FACTS" booklet - I'd offer to post photos but given how determined you are tokeep going for the sake of it, it wouldn't make any difference. 2.223.172.229 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Please quote the text. If they genuinely are misinformed then that should be enough to end the matter, anything beyond that really is troublesome but I'd hope that isn't the case.Ruffice98 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Fan4Life:
You can't just have the discussion closed because you don't want your opinion challenged, which it is clear is why you want it closed.
Apologies, I thought that quote was perfectly fitted to you. To paraphrase: You can't just have the discussion continuously going because you don't want your opinion challenged, which it is clear is why you won't give it up, after clear consensus. I'm requesting its closure because this discussion is going around in circles, and you are beating a dead horse. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)- @2.223.172.229: I would appreciate it if you did post photos of the booklet, and if it does indeed list them separately I won't challenge it. Fan4Life (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Careful. That's beginning to fall under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, requiring proof of a source put forward by another editor. Fourth-to-last dotpoint under Statements:
"I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source."
Alex|The|Whovian? 13:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)- I am asking because I cannot find any photos online and we really do need to be able to cite the source. Fan4Life (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Citing the booklet in the article would be fine enough; it does not need any specific seal of approval. Alex|The|Whovian? 15:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- I know that, but I would just like to be able to see it. Fan4Life (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- @2.223.172.229: I have already linked to the pages in a previous discussion, but if it helps I will link again, here[2] and here[3], among other places. You can't provide the facts booklet as it is only in physical form, it is not online and can't be quoted due to its format. Your reasoning for not posting photos doesn't make sense, if you have that evidence then why don't you want to provide it? Your refusal to post photos suggests that your claims are not true. Without photos the source is unverifiable as quotes cannot be used due to its format. A source than can not be quoted and that we have no photos of cannot be used as it is completely unverifiable and there is nothing to cite. Even if we did have photos we couldn't trust it as photos can easily be manipulated. Fan4Life (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I know that, but I would just like to be able to see it. Fan4Life (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Citing the booklet in the article would be fine enough; it does not need any specific seal of approval. Alex|The|Whovian? 15:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am asking because I cannot find any photos online and we really do need to be able to cite the source. Fan4Life (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Careful. That's beginning to fall under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, requiring proof of a source put forward by another editor. Fourth-to-last dotpoint under Statements:
- @2.223.172.229: I would appreciate it if you did post photos of the booklet, and if it does indeed list them separately I won't challenge it. Fan4Life (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Fan4Life:
- Please quote the text. If they genuinely are misinformed then that should be enough to end the matter, anything beyond that really is troublesome but I'd hope that isn't the case.Ruffice98 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sources do not need to be accessible online - not sure where you're getting that idea from. Also, DVD booklet notes are valid sources - that's why Template:Cite AV media notes exists Etron81 (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- It'll be great if 2.223.172.229 cites it. And that's all we need, especially if someone like Fan4Life wants to track it down and fact check it. DonQuixote (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sources do not need to be accessible online - not sure where you're getting that idea from. Also, DVD booklet notes are valid sources - that's why Template:Cite AV media notes exists Etron81 (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
This has simply degraded into a discussion of Fan4Life displaying WP:OWNBEHAVIOR again, and claiming that it cannot be sourced because they cannot see it. Where are you getting this idea that because it's not online, it can't be sourced? Books and encyclopedias are sourced all the time on here - if you had a look at even the Series 10 page, you'd see that DWM is sourced. Is that online? No. Do people have access to it? Yes. There hasn't been any "refusal" to post it. The IP editor doesn't even have an account on here, let alone a watchlist to get notifications for new posts on this talk page. And look, now this discussion isn't even what it was originally. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I joined this discussion asking for a better source. I'm happy to accept the DVD as a better source and will now accept the current division of episodes. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexTheWhovian: With DWM we can quote it, but we can't quote the facts booklet due to its format. Why are you determined for no photos to be posted? It is highly suspicious that you and other editors are flat out refusing to post photos, if you have evidence that could potentially end this once and for all, why are insistent on not providing it? This is completely ridiculous, I put forward multiple reliable, verifiable sources, including one from after DWM was published, and the arguments against them are: "the showrunner (who isn't even quoted in DWM) is a better source than the director", which just isn't acceptable, he isn't quoted so you can't say you are going by Moffat's word, and "the website is sourcing a director" which isn't true, plus the people running the website are within the BBC and therefore don't use sources, on the inside you don't need sources. There is such a double standard, if I said I had a source in physical form but refused to post photos you wouldn't accept it, no way, you would say what I am saying and dismiss it immediately. As well as this, you cherry pick when sources are reliable and when they are not, remember back on 3 October 2015 when you said "Certainly. How's this? Straight from the BBC itself - you can get no more superior source for a BBC-related series - and grouping the episodes accordingly. 1/2, 3/4, 5, 6, 7/8, 9, 10, 11/12." and remember back on 30 November 2015 when you said "What they decide to list the stories as in their polls is not reminiscent of what the stories are." Seems that your opinion changed so what constitutes a reliable source changed to suit it. Fan4Life (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Suspicious, you say? Well, for one, I don't even own the DVD! So how can I post photos? Hm? Riddle me that. Oh crap, you can't. You're going in circles here. I'm just going to wait for the photos. Which, yes, I wouldn't say no to seeing. And yes. I did change my view on it. It's not forbidden, is it? Put bluntly, I am finding you extremely patronizing, rude, and plain out ignorant. And October 3? Notice how that was almost a year ago? It didn't change then, and it's quite obviously (if you bothered to go over the discussion) not going to now. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, so you are taking a source you don't even own and so can't even verify yourself? When you said it does not matter, what matters is that you said it and then did a complete 180. No it isn't forbidden to change your view, but what isn't acceptable is changing what constitutes are reliable source to suit your opinion. Don't insult me, that is a personal attack which are strictly prohibited. Don't harass me on my talk page, there is no reason for you to be posting there. If you can't be polite and follow talk page rules, then I suggest that you leave this discussion. Fan4Life (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Deliberately avoiding my questions. Well, then. Shows where this discussion is going. Absolutely nowhere. You do not own this site, this discussion, or this talk page. You don't get to decide who can particpate. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am fully aware that I do not possess authority. I am not trying to decide who can participate, I was merely pointing out that you were violating talk page rules by insulting me and being impolite. I am not avoiding your questions, I assumed that you owned the source in question based on your support and approval of it. Fan4Life (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- And you claimed that I am basing my argument on this source. No. I am basing my arguments of the sources that have been presented in this exact-same discussion over the past almost-year. And I'm not providing more because I'm sick of this discussion. In fact, I believe I tried to tell you not to base an entire argument on the one source, but sure, whatever it is you say. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I know this isn't really evidence, but when talking about the structure of Series 10, Steven Moffat said "We’re going back to more singles. Two-parters worked brilliantly last year, but somehow, with the new companion, you want the simpler version of the show. By last year, the Doctor and Clara had been there for so long, it was a complicated relationship by then, so we needed the bigger stories." He also said "Next year will have some two-parters, but it will be back to one-parters mostly." If Series 9 had been half and half in terms of standalones and two-parters, these statements wouldn't make sense, there would not be any contrast as with only 1 less two-parter it would be mostly standalones, he wouldn't make a big thing out of the change as it would barely be any different, going from 3 two-parters and 6 standalones to 2 two-parters and 8 standalones is not really a change at all, if that were the case then there wouldn't be any need to make an announcement as there wouldn't really be a change in format. Fan4Life (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I am confused at how easily you go back on your own word, by demanding that other editors provide valid sources that relate directly to this discussion, but then use one that you claim that "this isn't really evidence", and barely relates by giving no solid evidence. Series 9 was the first series since the third in 2007 that was at least half made up of multi-part episodes, so I'm pretty sure that it is plenty of contrast. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am not "going back on my word" as I am not parading it as a reliable source, I am just making a point of how DWM is contradicted by every other source. It is you who is going back on your own word, you said before that you were not going to provide any more to the discussion. Going from half and half to 2 two-parters and 8 standalones is barely a change at all, there is very little contrast. Saying that Series 9 is the first series since Series 3 to have a least half made up of two-parters when only counting 3 two-parters is just clutching at straws to make it notable and give it a record. Fan4Life (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also funny how the source doesn't specify 2 two-parters and 8 standalones, hence WP:OR. I'm not going back on anything, because I'm not partaking in this (pointless/fruitless) discussion, because both it and you have done my head in so much. You presented a source that doesn't specify anything. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am not "going back on my word" as I am not parading it as a reliable source, I am just making a point of how DWM is contradicted by every other source. It is you who is going back on your own word, you said before that you were not going to provide any more to the discussion. Going from half and half to 2 two-parters and 8 standalones is barely a change at all, there is very little contrast. Saying that Series 9 is the first series since Series 3 to have a least half made up of two-parters when only counting 3 two-parters is just clutching at straws to make it notable and give it a record. Fan4Life (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I am confused at how easily you go back on your own word, by demanding that other editors provide valid sources that relate directly to this discussion, but then use one that you claim that "this isn't really evidence", and barely relates by giving no solid evidence. Series 9 was the first series since the third in 2007 that was at least half made up of multi-part episodes, so I'm pretty sure that it is plenty of contrast. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I know this isn't really evidence, but when talking about the structure of Series 10, Steven Moffat said "We’re going back to more singles. Two-parters worked brilliantly last year, but somehow, with the new companion, you want the simpler version of the show. By last year, the Doctor and Clara had been there for so long, it was a complicated relationship by then, so we needed the bigger stories." He also said "Next year will have some two-parters, but it will be back to one-parters mostly." If Series 9 had been half and half in terms of standalones and two-parters, these statements wouldn't make sense, there would not be any contrast as with only 1 less two-parter it would be mostly standalones, he wouldn't make a big thing out of the change as it would barely be any different, going from 3 two-parters and 6 standalones to 2 two-parters and 8 standalones is not really a change at all, if that were the case then there wouldn't be any need to make an announcement as there wouldn't really be a change in format. Fan4Life (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- And you claimed that I am basing my argument on this source. No. I am basing my arguments of the sources that have been presented in this exact-same discussion over the past almost-year. And I'm not providing more because I'm sick of this discussion. In fact, I believe I tried to tell you not to base an entire argument on the one source, but sure, whatever it is you say. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am fully aware that I do not possess authority. I am not trying to decide who can participate, I was merely pointing out that you were violating talk page rules by insulting me and being impolite. I am not avoiding your questions, I assumed that you owned the source in question based on your support and approval of it. Fan4Life (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Deliberately avoiding my questions. Well, then. Shows where this discussion is going. Absolutely nowhere. You do not own this site, this discussion, or this talk page. You don't get to decide who can particpate. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, so you are taking a source you don't even own and so can't even verify yourself? When you said it does not matter, what matters is that you said it and then did a complete 180. No it isn't forbidden to change your view, but what isn't acceptable is changing what constitutes are reliable source to suit your opinion. Don't insult me, that is a personal attack which are strictly prohibited. Don't harass me on my talk page, there is no reason for you to be posting there. If you can't be polite and follow talk page rules, then I suggest that you leave this discussion. Fan4Life (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Suspicious, you say? Well, for one, I don't even own the DVD! So how can I post photos? Hm? Riddle me that. Oh crap, you can't. You're going in circles here. I'm just going to wait for the photos. Which, yes, I wouldn't say no to seeing. And yes. I did change my view on it. It's not forbidden, is it? Put bluntly, I am finding you extremely patronizing, rude, and plain out ignorant. And October 3? Notice how that was almost a year ago? It didn't change then, and it's quite obviously (if you bothered to go over the discussion) not going to now. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @AlexTheWhovian: With DWM we can quote it, but we can't quote the facts booklet due to its format. Why are you determined for no photos to be posted? It is highly suspicious that you and other editors are flat out refusing to post photos, if you have evidence that could potentially end this once and for all, why are insistent on not providing it? This is completely ridiculous, I put forward multiple reliable, verifiable sources, including one from after DWM was published, and the arguments against them are: "the showrunner (who isn't even quoted in DWM) is a better source than the director", which just isn't acceptable, he isn't quoted so you can't say you are going by Moffat's word, and "the website is sourcing a director" which isn't true, plus the people running the website are within the BBC and therefore don't use sources, on the inside you don't need sources. There is such a double standard, if I said I had a source in physical form but refused to post photos you wouldn't accept it, no way, you would say what I am saying and dismiss it immediately. As well as this, you cherry pick when sources are reliable and when they are not, remember back on 3 October 2015 when you said "Certainly. How's this? Straight from the BBC itself - you can get no more superior source for a BBC-related series - and grouping the episodes accordingly. 1/2, 3/4, 5, 6, 7/8, 9, 10, 11/12." and remember back on 30 November 2015 when you said "What they decide to list the stories as in their polls is not reminiscent of what the stories are." Seems that your opinion changed so what constitutes a reliable source changed to suit it. Fan4Life (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that the source did say that, I was being hypothetical. Plus Moffat says "some two-parters", meaning at least two, although there could easily be just one. The point was that if Series 9 is half and half then going to mostly standalones is not a big change, not a change worth announcing, it would only be a big change if Series 9 was mostly two-parters. Fan4Life (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- So, you're basing this part of the discussion on what you believe is the case. That's not what happens here. You want us to put across solid sources that they're not a two-parter, so you need to put across solid sources that they are a two-parter. Not what you personally think of a "hypothetical" source. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, I am not using this as evidence, you are misinterpreting me. I am using it to back up the actual evidence, which is the official website, and no source beats that, it is ridiculous that DWM is being considered as more knowledgeable, especially when they have taken unofficial positions in the past and have changed their position multiple times. Fan4Life (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia one thing matters and that is reliability. Being official means absolutely nothing here. You may seriously want to consult some of the Wikipedia guidelines because you have repeatedly shown little understanding of them. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- How can reliability matter if being official doesn't matter? If something is official it is reliable, in no situation can something unofficial be more reliable than something official, an official source is by its very nature the most reliable. Don't patronize me, I am familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. Fan4Life (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Being "official" doesn't necessarily mean being "reliable". An "official" web site just means that it's the official web site as opposed to a fan site. It doesn't mean that it's more reliable (a la official ice cream vs fan ice cream). A journal is usually more reliable than a web site because they go through the added step of fact checking, etc. In other words, "official" is a weak argument. DonQuixote (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- So an opinion in a magazine with little to no connection to the BBC is considered reliable, but the official website from within the BBC itself is not? How do you work that out? That is ridiculous. Saying a source being official does not equate to it being reliable is just plain illogical, if a source is official that means that it comes directly from an organisation or individual with professional authority over the subject of said source, if a source is not official that means it has little to no connection with an organisation or individual with professional authority over its subject and therefore must source its information from an official source or the organisation itself. Fan4Life (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- How is this comment new? You're repeating yourself. This discussion is going nowhere. You're the editor with the issue of how the article is laid out, and your current arguments are not advancing this any more. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Fan4Life: As I have mentioned above, neither source is strong enough for me to make a judgement. I'm just telling you that throwing around "official" is a weak argument because it doesn't mean squat when it comes to being reliable--it just means that it's officially licenced and such. And it's the case here because they don't cite their source for the above information. They could have talked to someone in production, but they don't say, or they could not have, whereas the above issue of DWM sourced their info to Moffet. But again, the way it's worded, IMO, is rather weak. So, as I have also said above, wait for more reliable/less ambiguous sources. DonQuixote (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- How many times, the claims in DWM is pure opinion. An official source doesn't have to cite its source as it comes from within the BBC, you are applying the criteria of reliability for a third-party source, which is not applicable and cannot be used to discredit the reliability of the sources I have provided, this criteria only applies to sources from outside the BBC (for example, DWM). Something that is being ignored is that the website has maintained the same position throughout, whereas DWM has changed their's multiple times and none have been supported by official sources/evidence, like in issue #488 and #489 when they said that "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" were a two-parter, a source that has repeatedly changed their position and gone against all evidence is unreliable. Also, we can't wait for better sources as there are not going to be any more sources. How can a source that was reliable a year ago now be less reliable than a source that was unreliable a year ago? It seems to me that the opinions of editors have changed and so what constitutes a reliable source to them has also changed to suit it. A reliable source cannot become unreliable, especially when later sources have backed it up (e.g. the article on the website posted on 7 December 2015, and the video of Rachel Talalay calling the episodes a two-parter which was posted on 12 January 2016, which is after DWM was published), and an unreliable source can't become reliable. Fan4Life (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- The claims in DWM are based on the opinions of Moffat, the showrunner of the programme. And there's a difference between "official source" and "official website". If you want to be technical and nitpicky, the "official source" between the two is actually DWM (a role it has held for decades). You're just not listening to other people and, as it has been pointed out, you're regurgitating the same old thing in circles. If you want to change consensus, you should cite a totally new third-party secondary source. DonQuixote (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- The claims in DWM are not based on the opinions of Moffat, as shown by the repeated use of "we"/"we've" and the fact that Moffat isn't quoted at all. You cannot say that what is in DWM is the word of Moffat when he is not quoted and therefore you don't know what he said, or if he even said anything. DWM is not from within the BBC so it is not an official source, an official source comes directly from an organisation or individual with professional authority over the subject of said source, which is not the case with DWM as it is on the outside looking in. Fan4Life (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- The claims in DWM are based on the opinions of Moffat, the showrunner of the programme. And there's a difference between "official source" and "official website". If you want to be technical and nitpicky, the "official source" between the two is actually DWM (a role it has held for decades). You're just not listening to other people and, as it has been pointed out, you're regurgitating the same old thing in circles. If you want to change consensus, you should cite a totally new third-party secondary source. DonQuixote (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- How many times, the claims in DWM is pure opinion. An official source doesn't have to cite its source as it comes from within the BBC, you are applying the criteria of reliability for a third-party source, which is not applicable and cannot be used to discredit the reliability of the sources I have provided, this criteria only applies to sources from outside the BBC (for example, DWM). Something that is being ignored is that the website has maintained the same position throughout, whereas DWM has changed their's multiple times and none have been supported by official sources/evidence, like in issue #488 and #489 when they said that "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" were a two-parter, a source that has repeatedly changed their position and gone against all evidence is unreliable. Also, we can't wait for better sources as there are not going to be any more sources. How can a source that was reliable a year ago now be less reliable than a source that was unreliable a year ago? It seems to me that the opinions of editors have changed and so what constitutes a reliable source to them has also changed to suit it. A reliable source cannot become unreliable, especially when later sources have backed it up (e.g. the article on the website posted on 7 December 2015, and the video of Rachel Talalay calling the episodes a two-parter which was posted on 12 January 2016, which is after DWM was published), and an unreliable source can't become reliable. Fan4Life (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Fan4Life: As I have mentioned above, neither source is strong enough for me to make a judgement. I'm just telling you that throwing around "official" is a weak argument because it doesn't mean squat when it comes to being reliable--it just means that it's officially licenced and such. And it's the case here because they don't cite their source for the above information. They could have talked to someone in production, but they don't say, or they could not have, whereas the above issue of DWM sourced their info to Moffet. But again, the way it's worded, IMO, is rather weak. So, as I have also said above, wait for more reliable/less ambiguous sources. DonQuixote (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- How is this comment new? You're repeating yourself. This discussion is going nowhere. You're the editor with the issue of how the article is laid out, and your current arguments are not advancing this any more. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- So an opinion in a magazine with little to no connection to the BBC is considered reliable, but the official website from within the BBC itself is not? How do you work that out? That is ridiculous. Saying a source being official does not equate to it being reliable is just plain illogical, if a source is official that means that it comes directly from an organisation or individual with professional authority over the subject of said source, if a source is not official that means it has little to no connection with an organisation or individual with professional authority over its subject and therefore must source its information from an official source or the organisation itself. Fan4Life (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Being "official" doesn't necessarily mean being "reliable". An "official" web site just means that it's the official web site as opposed to a fan site. It doesn't mean that it's more reliable (a la official ice cream vs fan ice cream). A journal is usually more reliable than a web site because they go through the added step of fact checking, etc. In other words, "official" is a weak argument. DonQuixote (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- How can reliability matter if being official doesn't matter? If something is official it is reliable, in no situation can something unofficial be more reliable than something official, an official source is by its very nature the most reliable. Don't patronize me, I am familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. Fan4Life (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia one thing matters and that is reliability. Being official means absolutely nothing here. You may seriously want to consult some of the Wikipedia guidelines because you have repeatedly shown little understanding of them. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, I am not using this as evidence, you are misinterpreting me. I am using it to back up the actual evidence, which is the official website, and no source beats that, it is ridiculous that DWM is being considered as more knowledgeable, especially when they have taken unofficial positions in the past and have changed their position multiple times. Fan4Life (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
A paraphrase is as good as a direct quote. And if you mean "official" source within that context, Moffat is more official than the website. Seriously, you're swaying me away from your POV with your giving this web page undue weight, and I was rather neutral on this issue. It would serve you better to find more sources. DonQuixote (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- But they don't paraphrase, it is all their own words. How can the BBC be wrong? If the BBC aren't reliable then nothing is. One of the sources I provided was used previously so it is clearly reliable, a reliable source can't become unreliable, back then DWM (different article) was deemed unreliable. When the article being used as a source now was first provided it was dismissed because "What they decide to list the stories as in their polls is not reminiscent of what the stories are" as was said by AlexTheWhovian. How can a source that was unreliable now be reliable? The answer is it can't. No quote and no paraphrasing equals no evidence, a name check isn't evidence, meaning that the article is nothing more than opinion. At what point does that article categorically say that the episodes are definitively not a two-parter and provide evidence for it? It doesn't. Whereas both the sources I provided categorically say that the episodes are a two-parter. When I say DWM is unreliable I am merely pointing out that the article is clearly opinion and does not provide any form of evidence, when others say that my sources are unreliable they are saying the BBC are uninformed and are accusing the BBC of lying. Fan4Life (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Most of the people involved have made up their mind about the reliability and weight of these two sources. Your best option is to find another source. DonQuixote (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly refused to accept the consensus of rhe editors or even some any sort ofunderstanding of why we are taking the stance we are. Ultimately it IS going to be somebody's opinion. It's not a hard fact that is indisuptable. DWM went to Steven Moffat and he approved their list. This list was then used again in a DVD set produced by the BBC. That DVD set holds equal authority to your web source, having the list authorised by Steven Moffat seals it. One day that position may change, but for the present the list as is holds. Your arguments simply do not hold up, you cannot say that a source is unreliable because it isn't "official" and you cannot question a source you don't have access to, which is what you have based your entire argument on. In other words you have gone against Wikipedia policy in an attempt to change an article which simply is not good enough. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- All you are doing is beating a dead horse. Nothing is going to come out of it. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Ruffice98: The DVD does not list them separately. You simply cannot say that Moffat approves of listing them separately when he is not quoted or even paraphrased. You clearly have not read anything I have posted, if you had you wouldn't have given such a brief summary that fails to mention all but one argument I have put forward. Your only argument is that it has been discussed before, which isn't an argument at all. You can't say a source is reliable because they name checked someone with authority when giving their opinion. You can't say a source is unreliable because you disageee with it, which is essentially what you are doing. @AlexTheWhovian: I am not going to be forced to drop this, you don't own this page and cannot dictate if someone is allowed to debate something or not. Fan4Life (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't, you're right there. But you are going around in circles against a dozen and more editors to the point where it's just stupid. You have said everything you can, and no-one's mind is changed. Do you have anything new to add or not? Alex|The|Whovian? 13:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Ruffice98: The DVD does not list them separately. You simply cannot say that Moffat approves of listing them separately when he is not quoted or even paraphrased. You clearly have not read anything I have posted, if you had you wouldn't have given such a brief summary that fails to mention all but one argument I have put forward. Your only argument is that it has been discussed before, which isn't an argument at all. You can't say a source is reliable because they name checked someone with authority when giving their opinion. You can't say a source is unreliable because you disageee with it, which is essentially what you are doing. @AlexTheWhovian: I am not going to be forced to drop this, you don't own this page and cannot dictate if someone is allowed to debate something or not. Fan4Life (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- All you are doing is beating a dead horse. Nothing is going to come out of it. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly refused to accept the consensus of rhe editors or even some any sort ofunderstanding of why we are taking the stance we are. Ultimately it IS going to be somebody's opinion. It's not a hard fact that is indisuptable. DWM went to Steven Moffat and he approved their list. This list was then used again in a DVD set produced by the BBC. That DVD set holds equal authority to your web source, having the list authorised by Steven Moffat seals it. One day that position may change, but for the present the list as is holds. Your arguments simply do not hold up, you cannot say that a source is unreliable because it isn't "official" and you cannot question a source you don't have access to, which is what you have based your entire argument on. In other words you have gone against Wikipedia policy in an attempt to change an article which simply is not good enough. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Have you checked the DVD list quoted? Both sources are reliable, the question is which one got their facts wrong. The one that says they ran it past Steven Moffat versus the one that didn't back it up at all? I know which one most of us are going to go for. Everyone makes mistakes regardless of how reliable they are, it's a question of figuring out who is right and who is wrong and we have made a decision based on the facts presented. You on the other hand have failed to undermine our position (in fact looking through the above discussion you've actually managed to turn more people against your position than towards it). As a result we are asking you to wait until new hard evidence which goes against the current position presents itself. If Doctor Who Magazine is as inconsistent as you demand then surely you can wait for that to happen instead of dragging us round in circles? Ruffice98 (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
"return" of the cliffhanger
Okay, apparently I have to discuss this edit on the talk page - not quite sure why though. Every series has had at least one cliffhanger. Series 1-5 have 3 muli-parters (exactly the same as this season), series 6 has at least 2 (and possibly more), and series 8 had a multi-parter finale. the only series that didn't have a multi-parter was series 7, but even that had a CLIFFHANGER (the wording used on the page) in the finale. So maybe wording such as "more cliffhangers" would be accurate, but "return" definately isn't, cause they've never been away. [ps, sorry again for my first edit] 2.124.85.120 (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Your edit made absolute sense to me. But maybe the whole thing needs rework - this sentence kind of started being an whole season of cliffhangers but devolved to something less impressive as more evidence came along. It now doesn't seems as important as the second half of the paragraph - maybe more focus to Moffat's experiment with two-parters and loose arcs this season is more appropriate than trainspotting cliffhangers. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
"Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent" - Two Parter?
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.
I know many editors wish for me to drop and just live with the consensus, but I simply cannot. All evidence bar an opinion piece in DWM point to them being two-parters, including multiple sources from the BBC itself,[4][5] which apparently isn't good enough for some editors, and Rachel Talalay explicitly calling them a two-parter in a video that was released after DWM[6] and I think she'd know since she directed the episodes, plus when she calls the episodes a two-parter she is objective, whereas when she says they are different she is being subjective. Also, Sarah Dollard who wrote "Face the Raven" calls them a two-parter,[7] she says "But once Steven and the team read my first draft, they told me they’d like the story to change a little and become ep10, leading into the two-part finale." She makes it clear that Steven Moffat asked her to re-write the episode as a lead-in to the two-part finale. In DWM they don't say that they episodes ARE standalones, only that they consider them as such and that Moffat did not object to them listing the episodes this way, they did not say that Moffat confirmed that they are standalones, only that he subjectively agrees with them. In this situation, a source that is speaking subjectively is being used to override multiple sources that are speaking objectively. Also, Tom Spilsbury makes it clear than most of the production staff at DWM don't agree with him. As well as this, he says that they are listing them separately in the polls partly to see if DWM really has influence over Wikipedia, so there is a good chance that he doesn't even hold this view. You cannot say that some sources from the BBC are reliable but some are not, that is cherry picking to suit your own opinion. However this principle does not apply to DWM as there is massive variation, while most of the time it is reliable, sometimes it is incorrect and unreliable (for example calling TGWD and TWWL a two-parter in issue #493 despite no reliable sources confirming or corroborating it). This article has been corrupted by opinion, a source that was once reliable cannot become unreliable, it isn't possible, and a source that was once unreliable cannot become reliable either, it also isn't possible, the only way this can happen is if the opinion of editors change and so they change what constitutes a reliable source to match. Those who are saying that DWM should be used over all other sources are basically saying that the BBC, Rachel Talalay, Sarah Dollard and Steven Moffat are all wrong, which is undeniably ludicrous. Fan4Life (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just a little word of caution, because I've seen this happen before, attitudes like this can result in a topic ban if you push too much. And as I have personally suggested, finding a better source is the best option. DonQuixote (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're really pushing it now. You've discussed it. It has been rejected. Drop it, else you will face a report to the administrators. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Writing and development: "return of the cliffhanger"
In the Writing and development section it says that the series saw the "return of the cliffhanger", which is untrue and doesn't make sense. Although the show was mostly standalones from 2011–14, there were still cliffhangers, even in Series 7 which was all standalones, for example in "The Snowmen", "The Crimson Horror", and "The Name of the Doctor". Instead of it saying that the series saw the return of the cliffhanger, it should say that the series contained multiple two-parters for the first time since Series 6, which is factual and makes sense. Fan4Life (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Which stories are multi part stories?
Really sorry to bring this up, cause I know there's been discussion on it before, but I'm not trying to cause trouble, just help out. By complete chance, I was looking through some of the episode articles, and on Sleep No More (Doctor Who), I noticed the line "the only stand-alone story of the ninth series" in the text - with a source. As much as people probably don't want to go through this discussion again, all I'm trying to point out is an inconsistency in how wikipedia is written on the particular issue. And to prove it, I'm not even going to say what way I want wikipedia to go with, other than "don't have it one way on one page, and a different way on another page" 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:F471:EE7D:BCBA:A9DF (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I removed it to match existing consensus. The source did not mention anything in regards to being standalone anyway. Cheers for bringing it up. Dresken (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Critical acclaim
"Critical acclaim" has stood without dispute since its addition in October 2015, and per the definition at Wiktionary, if something is "critically acclaimed", then it is something "[t]hat has received generally good reviews from a number of critics"; the reviews for the ninth series match this definition. -- AlexTW 14:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- The consensus for films and TV is that the reviews should speak for themselves...ie, editors shouldn't judge whether something is critically acclaimed. However if a secondary source deems something to be critically acclaimed, then we cite that source. DonQuixote (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Also, this falls in line with "worst film" as well. (See talk:List of films considered the worst). DonQuixote (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- @DonQuixote: Please allow the WP:STATUSQUO while the discussion continues, instead of reverting, especially since there has been no dispute over the term for 20 months. (This is something that should have also been done at Twelfth Doctor per this war.) WP:FILM does not apply to television series, and is not mentioned at all in WP:MOSTV. The sources given have stated how the series has received good reviews, and therefore by the definition of "critical acclaim", the term is acceptable. Nothing is being judged by any editor here. However, if it is completely necessary, this source does go on to state "Today the critically acclaimed Complete Series 9 of Doctor Who [...]". -- AlexTW 15:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Anything and everything can be challenged. You would need to cite a secondary source to verify that it is critically acclaimed. This is how the "let the reviews speak for themselves" consensus was reached. DonQuixote (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- It has been challenge, I recognize that; that does not necessarily negate neither STATUSQUO nor BRD. However, I have met that challenge with both a secondary source and the very dictionary definition of "critical acclaim". -- AlexTW 16:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- That source is a merchandise guide and promoting it falls under WP:UNDUE. You would need something like Radio Times or Doctor Who Magazine or a critical analysis book. And using a vague definition falls under original research (80% of critics? 90%? etc.). DonQuixote (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- An identical case to this would be asking how we can state if a review is positive, if they do not explicitly state the word "positive"? How we can state if a review is critically acclaimed, if they do not explicitly state the word "critically acclaimed"? Identical situations. Dictionary definition is used for the first case; why not the second? Deciding yourself that it is vague is original research. -- AlexTW 16:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Context matters. Positive means greater than 50% to 100%. So it's a broad range. Critical acclaim means something very specific, but it's defined in such a way that it's a matter of opinion with regards to encyclopaedia editors. I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that this series wasn't critically acclaimed at all, so you would need to cite a reliable source so that it's not just your opinion versus my opinion kind of thing. (Personally, I'm not going to state absolutely whether or not it was critically acclaimed.) DonQuixote (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that it's a solid definition versus your opinion of said definition kind of thing. You believe that it's something very specific, but the definition of it conforms to what this article provides in relation to the positive reviews of the series. If you disagree with the definition, you should take that elsewhere. Until then, that definition is perfectly valid, no matter what anyone thinks of it. -- AlexTW 16:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's your opinion. My opinion is that it's nowhere near the definition. Citing a reliable source removes it from editors' opinions. DonQuixote (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- My opinion isn't coming into this. I'm using a dictionary definition that I've never touched. -- AlexTW 16:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's your opinion that this series is critically acclaimed. You need to cite a reliable source so that it isn't just your opinion. And wikimedia isn't considered a reliable source. Also, here are other definitions: "(of a dramatic or literary work) Exceptionally good reviews from all or most critics.", "well liked by people in the industry"...so yeah, it's a matter of opinion. DonQuixote (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, it's not. To be critically acclaimed, a majority of the reviews have to be positive. They are. That is not my opinion. And the examples you gave me further support my argument, so I thank you for them. There's no reason not to describe it as such now. -- AlexTW 17:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- So how do you define "majority"?--51%? That's a valid opinion, but it's still an opinion. That's something for secondary sources to assess. DonQuixote (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the definition of majority is to be more than 50%, yes, so again, that is a specific definition rather than an editor's opinion. -- AlexTW 17:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is that the threshold between just "positive" and "critical acclaim" isn't a clearly defined line and is based on opinion. That's the point. Instead of you or me trying to figure out where that line is, we should leave it to secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- The article lists only positive reviews for the series, there is no line required. -- AlexTW 17:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- That's your opinion. And 93% (RT) means there were negative reviews. Please cite a reliable source verifying critical acclaim. DonQuixote (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- The article lists only positive reviews for the series, there is no line required. -- AlexTW 17:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is that the threshold between just "positive" and "critical acclaim" isn't a clearly defined line and is based on opinion. That's the point. Instead of you or me trying to figure out where that line is, we should leave it to secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the definition of majority is to be more than 50%, yes, so again, that is a specific definition rather than an editor's opinion. -- AlexTW 17:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- So how do you define "majority"?--51%? That's a valid opinion, but it's still an opinion. That's something for secondary sources to assess. DonQuixote (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, it's not. To be critically acclaimed, a majority of the reviews have to be positive. They are. That is not my opinion. And the examples you gave me further support my argument, so I thank you for them. There's no reason not to describe it as such now. -- AlexTW 17:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's your opinion that this series is critically acclaimed. You need to cite a reliable source so that it isn't just your opinion. And wikimedia isn't considered a reliable source. Also, here are other definitions: "(of a dramatic or literary work) Exceptionally good reviews from all or most critics.", "well liked by people in the industry"...so yeah, it's a matter of opinion. DonQuixote (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- My opinion isn't coming into this. I'm using a dictionary definition that I've never touched. -- AlexTW 16:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's your opinion. My opinion is that it's nowhere near the definition. Citing a reliable source removes it from editors' opinions. DonQuixote (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that it's a solid definition versus your opinion of said definition kind of thing. You believe that it's something very specific, but the definition of it conforms to what this article provides in relation to the positive reviews of the series. If you disagree with the definition, you should take that elsewhere. Until then, that definition is perfectly valid, no matter what anyone thinks of it. -- AlexTW 16:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Context matters. Positive means greater than 50% to 100%. So it's a broad range. Critical acclaim means something very specific, but it's defined in such a way that it's a matter of opinion with regards to encyclopaedia editors. I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that this series wasn't critically acclaimed at all, so you would need to cite a reliable source so that it's not just your opinion versus my opinion kind of thing. (Personally, I'm not going to state absolutely whether or not it was critically acclaimed.) DonQuixote (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- An identical case to this would be asking how we can state if a review is positive, if they do not explicitly state the word "positive"? How we can state if a review is critically acclaimed, if they do not explicitly state the word "critically acclaimed"? Identical situations. Dictionary definition is used for the first case; why not the second? Deciding yourself that it is vague is original research. -- AlexTW 16:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- That source is a merchandise guide and promoting it falls under WP:UNDUE. You would need something like Radio Times or Doctor Who Magazine or a critical analysis book. And using a vague definition falls under original research (80% of critics? 90%? etc.). DonQuixote (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- It has been challenge, I recognize that; that does not necessarily negate neither STATUSQUO nor BRD. However, I have met that challenge with both a secondary source and the very dictionary definition of "critical acclaim". -- AlexTW 16:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Anything and everything can be challenged. You would need to cite a secondary source to verify that it is critically acclaimed. This is how the "let the reviews speak for themselves" consensus was reached. DonQuixote (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- @DonQuixote: Please allow the WP:STATUSQUO while the discussion continues, instead of reverting, especially since there has been no dispute over the term for 20 months. (This is something that should have also been done at Twelfth Doctor per this war.) WP:FILM does not apply to television series, and is not mentioned at all in WP:MOSTV. The sources given have stated how the series has received good reviews, and therefore by the definition of "critical acclaim", the term is acceptable. Nothing is being judged by any editor here. However, if it is completely necessary, this source does go on to state "Today the critically acclaimed Complete Series 9 of Doctor Who [...]". -- AlexTW 15:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Also, this falls in line with "worst film" as well. (See talk:List of films considered the worst). DonQuixote (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The article contains positive reviews. It's your opinion that there are enough positive reviews for it to be critically acclaimed. And that source fails WP:UNDUE since it's a merchandise guide and has nothing to do with criticism. Rotten Tomatoes will be a better source since it's all about criticism. DonQuixote (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- The definition is ""[t]hat has received generally good reviews from a number of critics" - the article contains "a number" of reviews, which by definition means multiple, all of them positive. And again, it is your opinion that it fails UNDUE, and so, it is completely usable. -- AlexTW 02:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- You do realise that wikimedia is user generated, right? So, yeah, that's not really the exact definition.
- Citizen Kane is critically acclaimed because reliable sources have called it critically acclaimed. Star Trek Beyond isn't considered critically acclaimed even though it received generally good reviews from a number of critics. The point is that encyclopaedia editors can't decide how many reviews dictate what is or isn't critically acclaimed--secondary sources do.
- And the above source fails WP:UNDUE because
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
(emphasis mine) The above source has a bottom-of-the-barrel prominence, I'm afraid to say. Also, it's one source saying it. None of the major reliable sources have called this season critically acclaimed, or at least you haven't shown that they have. So, yeah, fails "significant viewpoints" and "prominence". DonQuixote (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)- Your personal opinion on the topic has been noted. -- AlexTW 03:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- So has yours. So, cite a reliable source, with due weight, so that it's not just our opinions but something verifiable. DonQuixote (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, I still disagree. I know that restoring the WP:STATUSQUO would be greeted with an edit-war, given that such behaviour was evident at Twelfth Doctor per the previously provided link, so I have requested a third opinion at WP:3O. -- AlexTW 04:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- So has yours. So, cite a reliable source, with due weight, so that it's not just our opinions but something verifiable. DonQuixote (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Your personal opinion on the topic has been noted. -- AlexTW 03:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment from a similar discussion on 30 Rock: "it's sufficient to have citations for 4 of 7 seasons, unless there's evidence one season was "panned by critics" or the like". Power~enwiki (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 Response to third opinion request :
|
| Describing something as having "critical acclaim" requires reliable sourcing saying that. The style in film articles as well as WP:RS/AC reflects the policy against combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Cjhard (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC) |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Doctor Who (series 9). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://archive.is/20160124122900/http://www.ezydvd.com.au/DVD/doctor-who-season-9-limited-edition-gift-with-purchase-complete/dp/6172517 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/DVD/doctor-who-season-9-limited-edition-gift-with-purchase-complete/dp/6172517
- Added archive https://archive.is/20160124122900/http://www.ezydvd.com.au/DVD/doctor-who-season-9-limited-edition-gift-with-purchase-complete/dp/6172517 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/DVD/doctor-who-season-9-limited-edition-gift-with-purchase-complete/dp/6172517
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)/GA1
Placement of Last Christmas in Series 9
Now that it has been decided that Resolution fits with Series 11 in spite of the DVD release of Series 12 including it, I'd like to ask if we can move Last Christmas to Series 8. Production-wise and release date-wise, Last Christmas fits much better with Series 8. Flabshoe1 (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)