Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 16

McCoy Tangent
Just a quick tangent based on the McCoy comment brought up at the end of the discussion above. I would say "1987-1989;1996" was more accurate than "1987-1996". there was no TV series between 1990 and 1995 - and I think the latter format would suggest that there was, or cause confusion. I suggest that it is changed to the former. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Already done. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I will let you know what the BBC has to say, if and when they reply; I still prefer "1987-1996".

Does the article make sufficient distinction between the Classic Series and the New Series?

Nitramrekcap (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said "1987-1996" could be confusing - the introduction section states that
 * "The programme originally ran from 1963 to 1989. After an unsuccessful attempt to revive regular production with a backdoor pilot in the form of a 1996 television film, the programme was successfully relaunched in 2005, produced in-house by BBC Wales in Cardiff."
 * So to have someone from 1987-1996 suggests that they played the Doctor in a period where there was none. The suggestion I made was to have a sort of compromise between the two pages that you linked to.
 * As for the distinction between New and Classic, I don't think there is a difference - They are both "Doctor Who". The Doctor numbering is consistant (Eccleston is 9, Tennant is 10 etc), past Doctors have appeared in the new series (the flashback in The Next Doctor, the pictures in Human Nature, and Time Crash) and several villains have been in both.  The article is quite clear about the gap between the two in terms of years (Like I said above, it does specify the different runs) and I think that's good enough. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I must disagree. I agree with your earlier statement that "1989-1996" suggests continual production when, except for the canonically debatable Dimensions in Time, no new TV Who was produced and aired from January 1990 through April 1996. A box stands out from the text; that's the intent of one. To depend upon the text to clear up any incorrect implication made in said box is ill-advised. It is better to avoid such problematical material in a box in the first place. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what you mean. What are you saying that you disagree with?  Eleventh Doctor (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I misread some of that, and thought that the part about "The article is quite clear about the gap..." referred to McCoy's return for the Seventh's regeneration into the Eighth. My mistake, my apologies. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

DoctorWhoForum

 * For reference: http://www.doctorwhoforum.com/showthread.php?t=221988

I have brought the issue over the content of the panel to the attention of the DoctorWhoForum; I still think that Edokter (and others) are technically wrong to exclude the Later Appearances from the panel; one thing though, what a great story The Five Doctors is, having just bought the DVD, especially for the excerpt from "Shada" - what a pity there is not more Tom Baker in it!

Nitramrekcap (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Off the hop, please use the "new section" tap to start a new thread. What ever you did caused a break in the signature line of the post just above your new thread.
 * Beyond that, lay off the "You are wrong" shots. It's coming off as petulant and skirting WP:NPA.
 * As for what sounds like forum shopping... a few things:
 * Unless the people on the forum board you went to are willing to work with the community here, and that means contribute here, what ever is hashed out on that forum is worth just about nil here.
 * Given your statement and apparent attitude, if they do come here the editors and admins involved are likely to see you as engaging in meat puppetry and canvassing. Neither will strengthen your position.
 * Now, can we move on from this?
 * - J Greb (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What J Greb said. Bringing other people in here to force your viewpoint is a serious offence, and very likely to get you blocked. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The horse died a long time ago. You've stated your point several times, and consenus is clearly against you.  Let it go. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

CBC co-producer no more
DWIN is being quoted in the Doctor Who Forum as having said that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is variously no longer co-producer as of the end of series four, or the start. Does anyone have a source? MartinSFSA (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Graeme Burk, the editor of Enlightenment kindly got back to me immediately on this one. All the evidence points to CBC having dropped its financial support for the fourth series, however they'd tell DWIN everything except putting this in so many words. I have reversed the criteria, quoting their article in saying CBC was a co-producer for the first three series. MartinSFSA (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Has anyone found out if Space Channel is going to be co-producing the 2010 series? Or possibly BBC America (which is technically not the same company as the BBC, so I've found out). Not that the show seems to hurting from losing the $1.98 or whatever the CBC put into it (couldn't have been very much since they handled it so poorly). 68.146.81.123 (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits to head section
Hi - I'm aware that this is already a featured article, but my intention was to avoid a creeping effect from inserting so much current and specialist information into the lead, such that the general readership might find it reading badly. Sorry about removing the second Catherine Tate reference - the other refs looked fine to me on unless I'm missing something. Is it OK to try again, or can someone else handle it? There were other things I'd felt could do with context/explanation, but will hold off on that. --94.194.57.116 (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my main issue with the lead is that WP:LEAD says it should "summarize the most important points", which most of the lead does very well. (Also that it shouldn't be no more than 4 paras long - which it isn't, but it's beginning to stretch it).  However, references to individual episodes, particularly The Runaway Bride and The Next Doctor, which aren't even notable as the most recent and next episodes, are too much and might give the impression to the uninitiated that these are of particular significance.  Also, as I said, the tense in "will be followed by four more specials in 2009 and early 2010" is now outdated.  --94.194.57.116 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Years
I would just like to point out, that doctor who didn't officially stop running until 2000. And then five years later, Christopher came. It actually went from 1963-2000. Not 1989. So if someone could fix that, I would greatly appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.27.133 (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Err - no. Completely Wrong.  86.131.237.120 (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine as it is, I don't see any problems with the way the series are listed. magnius (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The comment used the word "officially". Remember in 1989 the BBC only said the programme was suspended. Could the anonymous person above be saying that it was only in 2000 that the BBC officially announced that the programme was ending? Could that be right? Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of that. I'd love to hear the anon IP explain the source of his/her information. For the record the BBC closed the Doctor Who production office in 1990, so if someone wants to be anal about it, I could see the argument for changing the date to 1990. But in most critieria a show's run is based upon its broadcast history, and the original series ended in December 1989 when it aired its final regular episode. The 1996 movie was a one-off special and then the show returned in the spring of 2005. The documentary More Than 30 Years in the TARDIS (which as an aside deserves a DVD reissue) has Sophie Aldred stating that she was told the show had been cancelled, full stop. That would have been either late 1989 or in 1990. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Group episode articles on two or more part stories from 2005
On stories pre 2005 episodes don't get an individual article. For Example Robot just gets Robot not Robot Part one, Robot Part Two etc. I suggest that from 2005 onwards stories should be grouped the same for example Aliens of London and World War Three should be in one article called Aliens of London & World War Three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.4.124 (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your other "contributions" tonight have compromised somewhat our patience to care what you think. The JPS talk to me  00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. In any case, episodes with different titles generally have their own articles. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 00:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, what would it be called Aliens of London/World War Three, that's silly. They are separate episodes with their own titles. TSJA episodes are put in the same articles with Part one and Part two because of the size of episodes.  Who niverse 93  talk?  00:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Eventually the 2-3 episode stories will get a single title, just as the classic stories up to 1965 now have. the problem for us, though, is that theer's no established titles yet, let alone a reliable source for such a thing. And don't go holding your breath - It took decades for some of those stories to get the titles we know them by now. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Small problem with that... Most of the early serials were eventually given an over all name by the BBC, whether it was the BBC's idea or and adoption of fan nomenclature isn't important.
 * Right now only the fan nomenclature exists for the lumped 2 or 3 part stories, or for the entire seasons, for Doctor Who post-2005.
 * - J Greb (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy assassination
Premiering the day after the assassination of President Kennedy, the first episode of Doctor Who started late, and was repeated with the second episode the following week. Do we want this added? I've already said yes, because it adds something meaningful to the article MartinSFSA (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As the events are unconnected (as mentioned here, the delay was nothing to do with the assassination) it's a little misleading the way it's worded at present and I'm not sure it's notable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's notable on a number of points. A historic event which is often cited due to its proximity. Multiple references within the continuity of the show itself. Let alone the number of people who have asked or even told me it was the same day!!! Rewriting it to demonstrate the fallacy would be easy. But I'm going to take my ball and go home!
 * PS it's p. 54 in Handbook of the First Doctor for true transmission time (currently mis-cited in article for intended transmission time) and p. 57 for the repeat the following week (excluding Northern Ireland) due to power blackouts. MartinSFSA (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of shows are delayed or postponed due to news events, but it's not noteworthy enough to mention in the article. The BBC cites this as a myth anyway, it was only 80 seconds late.  This falls under non-notable fancruft. magnius (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is scarcely in the same league as a mundane transmission delay. It is cited on the BBC site, in the Handbook and in multiple other sources. It's important because it is the first episode and the myth of the Kennedy assassination delaying it. It's notable enough to be mentioned in almost every media story on the show's origin. How important do you want it to be??!!?
 * I don't know Magnius, we took on the dread Nitramrekcap together, and used to go on romantic walks on beaches let alone montages of us frolicking in the opening credits. But no more, baby. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Where does the BBC cite this as a myth? BryonyM (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That'd be the link Pawnkingthree kindly provided, although it only states the five minute delay is a myth, not the cause. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there are (at least) three issues here:-

1. I suggest that the most notable issue here is not the delay but the close proximity of these significant events, putting Dr. Who in a very real historic context, at least for its British viewers. It also helps to demonstrate the longevity of Dr. Who.

2. But say we agree that it is a "myth?" My online dictionary defines "myth" as "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people." To me, this suggests that, as a myth, this point is worth making, even if one then chooses to discount it.

3. And how about the second point in my original post: the repetition of the first episode a week later (perhaps because some people missed the first episode following the assassination aftermath? That seems very notable, like giving the show a second chance because not enough people saw the first episode?

Can I suggest something like: Premiering the very day after the assassination of President Kennedy, the first episode of Doctor Who'' was repeated with the second episode the following week. There are accounts that transmission of the first episode was delayed, but stories of a major delay appear to be urban myths.''

Given the Dr. was a time traveller, it seems ironic that we are debating the significance of these early time warps! BryonyM (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Agreed; it wouldn't be notable without the claim generated by the assassination. 2. Partly agree, sounds like only one meaning of myth. 3. Agree, this shows how determined the BBC was to get a return on their investment.
 * On your suggested text; drop "very" s it's only an emphasis. Ditto "accounts", it's not a claim but proven by the BBC paperwork.
 * As for Magnius, possibly some time plus flowers and chocolates? MartinSFSA (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You people keep using the word delay, but the allegation that the transmission started late (something I've never heard asserted before, not even by highly respected Who historian Andrew Pixley in Doctor Who Magazine: Special Edition #7, 12 May 2004 (The Complete First Doctor), "Season 1: In Production — Do You Want to Know a Secret?", Panini Comics, p. 17, which is saying something — and since magnius says "it was only 80 seconds" (1 minute, 20 seconds), which jibes with Pixley's "5:16" instead of a more plausible 5:15, that is insignificant and non-notable) does not seem to have been the originally intended point here. Rather, it is what has invariably been claimed to have been a repeat one week later prior to the premiere of the second episode. This is something that Pixley reported, attributing it to a desire "to confirm BBC TV's faith in the new serial" arising out of low ratings caused by "the mood of the country [over JFK's assassination], plus a power blackout in some regions" (ibid — the very next paragraph, in fact). Unless you want to attack Pixley's credibility (which I don't recommend), it doesn't seem to be a myth at all, but attributing the repeat entirely to the assassination is merely part of the story. Bottom line: while there is no good reason to mention a very brief delay to the start of the original telecast, the repeat a mere week later is very unusual (indeed, the aforementioned Who special and the analogous one for the 2nd Doctor indicate that any repeats on the BBC in this era were quite rare) and therefore notable, and should be mentioned.
 * As for MartinSFSA's "...it's not a claim but proven proven by BBC paperwork," unless this "paperwork" consists of internal memos from the time, they have no more credibility than Pixley's exhaustive research. Companies have most certainly been known to lie about events well after the fact, and in putting together an encyclopedia we would be guilty of dereliction of duty to not allow for the possibility. On the other hand and as I implied at the outset, I am unsure as to whether he is discussing the brief delay or the sooner-than-usual (to put it mildly) repeat, even though he is the one that launched this thread to begin with. --Tbrittreid (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * F'ck sake. I have to go through it all over again.
 * The claim (not mine) is three fold. The show premiered on 23 November 1963, the day after the Kennedy assassination. Are you going to question that? It was repeated the following week, and this is one of eight episodes repeated on BBC1 through the sixties. Try disputing this. And it was late. Which, as you point out, oh wisdom of the ages, would be non notable itself. Thanks for the straw man. However the original poster (BryonyM) added in their summary that this was because of the assassination fallout. There is no evidence of the cause, and cause is a major point of debate amongst historians anyway, let alone people like you. However there is a long asserted belief that there was some connection between the assassination and the delay on the 23rd, let alone the repeat on the 30th. I like the added text because it addresses this, albeit the intention was to connect the two where I'm skeptical.
 * Finally, on sourcing and reputation. Reputation is nothing. Pixley's claims are only as good as they are, irrespective of his track record. If he suddenly claimed Doctor Who was a pancake not a television show then this claim must be interpreted without appeal to other irrelevant claims. And the BBC paperwork. Where, pray tell, do you think Pixley draws his claims from? He has a magical antennae. It's a whopper. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! In the edit summary, you label this a "friendly responce" [sic]. I see absolutely nothing friendly about it, and very little genuinely valid (most of it is lacking in relevance, accuracy, or both). I never posted a word so much as implying that I was disputing the debut date or the following week's repeat; in fact I agreed with both, while the notability of the just-barely late start does indeed appear to be at issue in the discussion (as does, if not as clearly so, the repeat; not its notability, but that it actually happened). I voted against its notability. Your entire "Finally..." paragraph is beyond my comprehension, at least in the context of both this discussion and Wikipedia regs about sources (WP: Verifiability, not truth). Do you honestly mean to suggest that Pixley makes his stuff up? That's what your comment reads like. Reputation = credibility and reliability, not "nothing." I will fully admit to and apologize for one mistake on my part: Your citing of "BBC paperwork" is well-taken, as it appeared in reference to an offered sentence wherein the basic concept of a delay to the premiere, which that material confirms did happen, was referred to as being according to "accounts." An inappropriate term and I repeat, your point was well-taken. Again, my apologies. That, however, was not in any way, shape, or form your response to/defense against my incorrect challenge of "BBC paperwork," which was instead the aforementioned total dismissal of Pixley's credibility.

After all this, I remain unsure as to just what you are having a problem with here. If it is the drawing of a connection betweeen the 80-second late start of the premiere and the JFK assassination, I agree that this is unlikely and without a "verifiable source" specifically making it, it should not be in the article. However, you further appear—unclearly—to also claim being "skeptical" of a connection between the assassination and the week-later repeat. If so, under Wiki regs Pixley (your apparent bias against him notwithstanding) does justify including that, qualified by the rest of his statement as I quoted previously. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth bring Pixley's reputation up at all? It only muddies the waters, he draws from the Programme as Broadcast records, as do I or anyone who wants to cite whether the episode went out as scheduled.
 * What is relevant is the claim it was five minutes late and the assassination being given as a cause. We can knock down one of those, and the article can reflect this. I've had enough people tell me the rumour to say it's notable.MartinSFSA (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * YOU cast dispersions on "Pixley's reputation," so don't you dare ask me, "Why bring it up?" Now you're saying the false claim of a noticeable delay of the premiere is notable? Talk about muddy waters, you now appear to be flip-flopping. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I must stress again it's quite irrelevant. That's seven consistent responses on my behalf saying the rumour is notable, which makes the text notable too. If you want to debate the issues then go ahead.
 * I too have a reputation, but I'd never lead an argument saying "I'm right 'cos I'm famous". MartinSFSA (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You have posted eight times here, but with no consistency to your point—or at least no consistent clarity about it. I wouldn't have been asking what your point is if you had been. And even ignoring that, you now do indeed seem to be saying that the fact that you have (allegedly) repeatedly stated that "the rumour is notable" settles the issue, which contradicts your comment here re: Pixley. Speaking of him, it is not a matter of simply being "famous," not at all. I insist you check out the previously linked-in Wiki-reg about sources. Furthermore, if your point has always been what you now claim, then Pixley's work is irrelevant, not because you apparently believe him to be a faker but because he did not actually note that the premiere transmission began late at all, let alone allege a reason for it. Now, either get a grip on reality or get out. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As you've refused to move this to our respective talk pages, I will endeavor to answer your questions as politely and thoughtfully as possible. MartinSFSA (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record here, I refused that demand (and that is what you made as can be seen on my talk page) because I see no reason for it whatsoever. Our discussion is about a passage for this article. And I'm not as interested in politeness and thoughtfulness as much as clarity and thoroughness. As yet you've demonstrated neither; not one posting from you in this business has been completely comprehensible—at least in context. To varying extents, yes, but never completely, or totally or whatever word you might prefer. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're aware but the claim that the episode transmitted slightly late comes from the Doctor Who Television Companion, by David J.Howe and Stephen James Walker, who are just as highly respected DW historians as Andrew Pixley is. In itself this is not particular notable, but the fact that the episode was repeated a week later (very unusual for 60s Who, and presumably because the BBC felt it was overshadowed by the JFK assassination, even if it was not delayed directly because of it), is perhaps worth a mention.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pawnkingthree, the first response to you (above) cites these points from the Handbook, Howe et al's prior reference work, where the majority of the text for the Television Companion is drawn from. Perhaps they wrote it first for The Frame? MartinSFSA (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who"s "home channel"?
I have changed the start of the section in an attempt to reflect the discussions. I just noticed another discussion point in the next sentence: "Doctor Who has always appeared on the BBC's mainstream BBC One channel." This seems to ignore the fact that episodes are also shown on BBC Three, even if they are just repeats, greatest moments, and other specials. To many of today's viewers, BBC 3 may be the home of Dr. Who. BryonyM (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Various episodes have been repeated in the UK on many channels, but I can't see any viewers considering BBC3 "the home" (whatever that means) of the programme, so I think your argument is pretty spurious - the existing statement is accurate and doesn't say anything about a "home". Stephenb (Talk) 12:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement I looked at ("Doctor Who has always appeared on the BBC's mainstream BBC One channel") is not accurate as written. Sometimes Doctor Who has appeared on BBC 3 as well, although usually as repeats, I believe. As well as other channels as you say. It's the word "always" that seems incorrect to me. No big deal. BryonyM (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is accurate as written. It doesn't say "has always appeared only on".  Although, it could be mentioned that it has also appeared on BBC3, PBS, BBC America, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

First dictionary definition of "always" I found: "At all times; invariably." BryonyM (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right, all episodes have invariously been broadcast on BBC's mainstream channel. This doesn't negate the fact that it has also been broadcast on all the other channels.  DonQuixote (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it does, Don. That is exactly what "always" and "invariably" mean, "never anything else." --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * From dictonary.com (a free resource that anyone can use): "1. every time; on every occasion; without exception: He always works on Saturday." It would be idiotic to assume that he doesn't work on Mondays.  Every episode has, without exception, aired on BBC's mainstream channel.  It would be idiotic to assume that none of these episodes have ever aired anywhere else. DonQuixote (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Consider, however, the statement "He always goes to work on the bus." That suggests, I believe, that he never goes to work by car, by foot or by bicycle. At the very least, it seems that two of us find the statement under discussion ambiguous. How about this simple revision to make it clearer: "Doctor Who has always appeared first on the BBC's mainstream BBC One channel" (or similar). BryonyM (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's a different context. Think about it.  The bus example works out that way because those things are mutually exclusive--it's either one or the other due to physical restraints.  With the other things you can have "He always works on Mondays and Saturdays" and "Programme X always airs on both channels Y and Z"...and other iterations such as "He always works on Mondays and Saturdays, but not too often on Thursdays and never on Sundays", etc. DonQuixote (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Precisely, Don, context makes the difference. Like it or not, there is a strong connotation to uninitiated readers of "nowhere else" and we should make allowances. Perhaps we should say, "...Doctor Who episodes have always premiered on...BBC One...."? --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said in my very first response, the sentence as written is grammatically and factually accurate, although mention could be made of the other channels...for those who are unfamiliar with reruns and syndication. DonQuixote (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see why someone might be confused, but that has nothing to do with the current wording being wrong and (frankly) everything to do with the fact that the lowest common denominator of readers is pretty damn low. I agree that elaboration would be better than a clumsy rewording. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes made in line with the discussion since there seems to be more of a concensus on this now. Stated "initially" rather than "premiered" since "premiered" appears immediately above. Small concise mention of repeats on 3. BryonyM (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Reads like a cow now, but considering the dispute even editors managed to get into over the word "always" this is an improvement. Which reminds me of Rimmer's complaint that Hollister's assessment that he "constantly" failed exams would be wrong if he was describing consumption of roast beef.MartinSFSA (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't some episodes, like The Five Doctors, initially air (or premiere) on other channels? DonQuixote (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Spew. Yes, Five Doctors is the exception however, and also the only co-production until the new series. Equally, the show didn't premiere on BBC One but BBC, known from 1964 to 1997 as BBC1. Still, this article is intended to reflect international readers in UK English. We could make the text in question explicit about UK broadcast, or change it. Again. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "has always aired on the BBC, later BBC1, with Yada Yada Yada airing repeats and specials, etc."? DonQuixote (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just list the main original channel, and it doesn't matter what name it used at any particular time, it was always the same one. No need to faff about or get overly pedantic. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Added G.O.L.D. and Watch as UK channels also showing repeats, all or nothing. magnius (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)