Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 20

Style of police box
I'm not sure it's fair to describe the TARDIS as resembling a 1950s or 1960s style police box; it doesn't seem particularly well drawn from any era box. Is there a source for this?MartinSFSA (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See TARDIS, second cited reference. DonQuixote (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean that source that breached BBC guidelines and was denounced by the corporation? We can do better than that. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You've lost me. Breached what guidelines? Denounced when? Edgepedia (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The BBC were not happy with the promotion of the book, and felt Parsons had broken their guidelines. Subsequent editions made the unauthorised nature of the book's Doctor Who connection more apparent. So, in almost fifty years of publishing, there has to be a better (authorial, canonical, or at least authorised by the BBC) source for making the claim it is a "1950s" style police box rather than a generic police box than an unauthorised book by Some Guy.
 * While I don't want to get into yet another endless debate about WP:RS, I too could write it is a 1950s style police box on my butt, and claim it's an "Unofficial and Unauthorised" guide.
 * And don't get me started on Michael White. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see we need a source that's been authorised by the BBC. Independence as its advantages. Edgepedia (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As do wildly inaccurate sources composed by self claimed experts and quoted by lunatics. MartinSFSA (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources discussing that book, saying it's wildly inaccurate? You'll understand that we can't take your word for it. Right now, the book seems to be a reliable source, and unless there's a source of comparable (or better) quality source saying the TARDIS isn't styled after a 1950s police box, there's nothing wrong with using the book. --Six words (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are making me the subject of this question rather than the source or the claim. The change to the article was not mine (and has been deleted []), and I bring no baggage. I have zero interest in the matter and about as much in Paul Parsons and his book. He doesn't claim to be an expert in police boxes, industrial design, the history of BBC trademarks or the minutae of Coburn, Webber, Newman or Brachacki's intent. While we tend to regard any source as equivalent to any other, this does seem a deliberate attempt to use the worst possible one rather than the best -- a whole second Wikipedia article which references a popular science book written by a magazine editor, who only asserts the critical passage in passing (IIRC).
 * So, without reference to me, Paul, Wikipedia policies or other irrelevancies, can we find a better source to demonstrate it "to be a blue 1950s British police box"?MartinSFSA (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No one's stopping you from finding a better source. DonQuixote (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm spending the time arguing the point. I don't intend to. MartinSFSA (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum, so there's no need to discuss the source in regard to anything but such “irrelevancies” as Wikipedia policies. There don't seem to be sources contradicting this book, and according to our policies, the book is OK to use, so the statement - should anyone want to - can be added to the Doctor Who article. If better sources are available they can be used, but they're not necessary. --Six words (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll meet you halfway; by consulting the unpaginated, unreferenced and ultimately unreliable source (it actually claims the TARDIS "looks like a 1960s London police box"). All you have to do is find the appropriate Wiki policy which explains the criteria is neither truth nor verifiability. Or you could try taking my point this time. MartinSFSA (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no halfway here, MartinSFSA: we have a source that says one thing, and you have no reliable sources to contradict that. You may think the book's research stinks to high heaven, and it may very well be a jolly nice Stilton. That said, it is a published source, and naught has been published to contradict that - at least, naught that you have offered to contradict that. Being rational comes into play at this point: the series began in the early 1960's and was meant (via the machine's chameleon circuit) to blend it. It broke, keeping the image of the police box from that time period. Granted, there is a little synthesis going on with that, but only a little bit, imo. If you find a source that contradicts the source we already have, bring it forth. Until then, verifiability trumps truth. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realise, Jack Sebastian, that you are championing using this source which says it is a 1960s style police box to back up claims it is a 1950s style police box? Which is why it was invoked in the first place, and still sources this claim on the TARDIS entry. You have a source which claims one thing, entries which say another, and now your synthesis which says a third. There is a point to all this, however obscure, as it's apparent that even if we fulfill certain criteria which tend to define knowledge, they still demonstratively lack something. This is neither verifiability nor truth, an admin has suggested what I'm seeking is warrant.MartinSFSA (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the source says 1960s, then change it to 1960s. Until now you never said the source doesn't say 1950s, but asked for additional sources because the source was “denounced by the BBC”. --Six words (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you've been reading this to claim the last. Suffice to say even if it was backing the claim (it ain't) then I've demonstrated there's something sorely lacking from this level of sourcing. Simply changing the claim doesn't fix the problem. I believe it fails RS on a number of grounds: reliability, fact checking, context, authority, weighting and comparative analysis.
 * There are two issues: the paucity of the source and the epistemological one of lack of justification. Knowledge has been defined as a true justified belief. With an open source encyclopedia, the criteria of belief and truth would be too much to ask of a general audience. This leaves knowledge equals justification. This example gives a great demonstration of fallible sources which on the face of it are OK. Yes, I've taken this to the relevant Noticeboard. The policies don't make us; we make them. MartinSFSA (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the beginning of this section, sorry if you felt misrepresented by my paraphrase. --Six words (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear from sources like this and this, and indeed, our own Police box article, that the TARDIS design as we know it was introduced in 1929 by Gilbert MacKenzie Trench, the Metropolitan Police Surveyor. By 1937, the entire network of some 700 police boxes were all over London. Of course they were still around in the 1950s and 60s, so it's possible to describe the TARDIS as 50s or 60s style, but that's misleading, as the design dates from many years earlier.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Link #1 seems to be a private website (if so it's most likely not a reliable source), #2 doesn't say much about the exterior design (except for mentioning the colour and material) and we can't use our own articles as sources. Even if the basic design is from 1929, it's still possible that it slightly changed over time, so describing the TARDIS as a 1950s or 1960s style could be correct (let's pretend the TARDIS were styled after a mini - if it had that second series radiator grill it surely would be correct to say it was styled after that model even though the first model looks quite similar?). I don't know if it is and even if I did, it would be original research to use my own knowledge instead of a verifiable source; unless there's a source contradicting book used in the TARDIS article or it isn't considered a reliable source (I couldn't find a discussion at the relevant noticeboard), we're done here. --Six words (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While I see MartinSFSA's point, the issue is not of of whether it is true or not, but what we can cite. It's one of the hardest of our policies and guidelines to work with: if you cannot cite it, chances are, you cannot say it. Much has been said about DW over the years; there must be a source or three that talk about this specific issue. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Linking from infobox to latest episode
It occurred to me that it would be useful to our readers if we had a, but I was reverted. What do other editors think? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I Like the idea to be honest not sure what the consensus will be though. 21:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)

Untempered Schism redirection
"Untempered Schism" redirects here, but the article makes no mention of it. I suggest that the redirection point to Time vortex (Doctor Who) or The Sound of Drums, where the Untempered Schism is discussed. I think the former is better. 75.0.66.230 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Time vortex just has a bit in a list that mentions that the schism appeared in The Sound of Drums, so I've redirected it to The Sound of Drums as the main article. DonQuixote (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Only human
There has been a little back-and-forth regarding the following:
 * (from the Doctor Who subsection of Adaptations and other appearances)'' (text in question in bold):
 * "In these films, Peter Cushing plays a human scientist named "Dr. Who", who travels with his two granddaughters and other companions in a time machine he has invented. The Cushing version of the character reappears in both comic strips and a short story, the latter attempting to reconcile the film continuity with that of the series.

An anon contributor tagged the "human scientist" bit for citation, and it was reverted with the reasoning that it was "sourced to the subject itself, which is allowed for plot details of a work of fiction". I reverted this removal of the citation request tag, as I felt that this claim of human ancestry, even in what was apparently a watered-down "accessible" version of the series for newcomers, needed citation. Additionally, it was challenged (the anon followed by myself), and cited material means citation becomes necessary. I foolishly noted in my edit summary that not everyone had access to the original movie, which implied that it sucked as a source because it wasn't available to all - which another user called me on his revert of my revert of the original revert (I think that's the way of it). It was not my intent to imply such, but there it is. I've reverted it again to the state wherein a citation tag exists at the part about the Doctor being human; frankly, I'd prefer the entire sentence be cited (having built his own time machine and all that is a pretty bold statement). Entire forests have been wiped out to write books about DW; one of them must contain a citable reference that we can use in place of someone off-stage calling 'uh, yeah, I saw it, with my wife, Natalie Portman; yeah, that't the ticket.' I am not suggesting that the persons calling for us to follow primary source material instead of independent citation are trying to pull a fast one - quite the opposite. I am suggesting that with the mountain of material available for citation, some effort should be exerted by someone with the wherewithal to find the reference and cite the matter properly. This is an encyclopedia, after all. Let's get some other viewpoints. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume you want books? I just did a quick Google search and came up with this link. There is a still from one of the Dalek films (Daleks: Invasion Earth) with the text:
 * 'Two "Dr. Who" cinema films, both larger budget retellings of existing television stories, were released in 1965 and 1966. In these films, Peter Cushing played a human scientist named "Dr. Who", who travels with his two granddaughters and other companions in a time machine he has invented. Both films focused heavily on the Daleks'.
 * Would that suffice as a reliable source or would you prefer we kept looking for a literary or BBC source? Comics (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the Telegraph source is plenty sufficient. :) I just thought we needed sources, and you goto one. Kudos. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Title card image needs updating
I just noticed the infobox still has the old version of the logo. Series 6 introduced a new version, with refinements to the font and coloring, plus the addition of the BBC logo. Someone should update the image since "Current Doctor Who main title card" is no longer an accurate caption. With the DVD of Series 6 due out any day this should be easy to do. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Which villains/monsters are 'iconic'?
Wikipedia can not, as a general rule, use itself to support certain information. This said, our own article on cultural icons states that some writers believe the word 'iconic' is overused. Considering how things have happened on this article lately, I'd agree.

When I looked at this article this morning, we had a list of four antagonists that are reasonably established as the most important in the series. Underneath, we had a further list of about seven more monsters (most of which are New Series), and a claim that these were also iconic. I have no doubt that Doctor Who is an iconic series, and despite having an affection for many of the monsters listed I'd hardly suggest they all warrant being included on the article. This is an article about 'Doctor Who' the TV Series and looking at it's history, elements of the show, and it's worldwide reception and influence. We already link out to two lists of Doctor Who Villains and Monsters, so the section on adversaries should be kept brief or cover elements that themselves are important to the series.

The villains listed were the Daleks, Cybermen, Master, Davros, Sontarans, Silurians, Judoon, Ood, Weeping Angels, Autons, Slitheen, Silence, Cybermats and Cassandra (removed). Even Batman, which has been around for nearly 80 years and has been cited with the greatest rogues gallery in comics doesn't have this many iconic enemies, let alone so many created in the last 7 years. (off the top of my head, the ones that are seen as nearly undeniably iconic are the four main 1966 series villains and Two-Face. That's five to this claim of almost 14). We as editors can not deny what sources state, but this list didn't have any sources suggesting that any were 'iconic'. Besides, the bias for recentism is quite strong (8 of these villains appears in the classic series and, outside of the 'big four', that means there were five/six New Series villains to four Classic Series. Seeing as the classic series lasted for 26 years as opposed to the New Series' 7, I would think the skew would be towards, if anything, five Classic antagonists and one or two New Series ones.)

The text also states that 'aside from infrequent appearances by the Ice Warriors (four appearances), the Yeti (two appearances), the Rani (two appearances, a third of disputed canonical merit), the Meddling Monk (two appearances), Omega (two appearances), the Black Guardian (two appearances, arguably four) and Sil (two appearances), some adversaries have become particularly iconic'. The Daleks, Cybermen and Master have, in total, almost 50 amassed story appearances (Davros' appearances are confined to Dalek ones and can't be counted separate). (The Daleks have 22, the Master 22, and the Cybermen 14 'whole' stories, disregarding minor appearances). As such, they are the most prolific recurring adversaries in the series and perhaps notable in this respect.

The monsters that were listed as 'Others' included the Sontarans (7 appearances), Silurians (5 appearances), Judoon (2 appearances), Ood (4 appearances), Weeping Angels (2 appearances), Autons (4 appearances), Slitheen (2 appearances), Silence (1 appearance so far), and Cybermats (3 in the TV series). The only two monsters that appear more frequently than any of the 'infrequent' monsters are the Sontarans and Silurians. Each of the rest have either equal to or less appearances than the Ice Warriors.

Considering that 'iconic' is such a vague word due to overuse, but that the Daleks are seen as the most iconic villains in the series, this would suggest some things.

1 - that the most iconic monsters are from the Classic Series and had about 15 appearances in the classic run. (The Master had 19, and the Cybermen 10. They are still among the most prolific and in total, these three villains had 45 appearances in the classic run).

2 - the most iconic monsters are instantly recognisable and discussed frequently in the media. (of these, the Daleks are perhaps the only qualifiers - other characters like the Silence and Cybermen recieved publicised hype before their appearances in the New Series)

3 - there is no 'most iconic monster', and merely 'most appeared villains'. Of these, the Daleks, Cybermen and Master qualify as well as Davros, the Silurians and Sontarans (arguably).

4 - Word of God speaks. The BBC classic page has links to lists of the appearances for the Daleks, Cybermen, Master, Davros and Sontarans. This might suggest they are the most notable villains of the classic run.

I think, though, that if we are to list a monster or villain as 'iconic' we must first have a notable source stating that they are such, and preferably more than one to lend any claims that someone in iconic credibility. I'm sorry that this is such a long piece, but the entire 'Other' list of 'iconic monsters' seemed like OR and really strange. I love them, but are the Ood really considered iconic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comic master (talk • contribs) 02:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that we have several pages devoted to the fiction of Doctor Who, there is no need to list out every recurring baddie. Three clearly make sense, Daleks, Cybermen, and the Master (All having appearences in the double digits). I would even take out Davros (mentioning him among the Daleks).  Any other recurring villain shouldn't be mentioned on this page. --M ASEM  (t) 03:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree on Davros (he's really very tied to the Daleks isn't he?), and I'm sorry my earlier post got really long. Comics (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To those that keep adding this: realize this page is 134k long without these details - we're way oversize and need to move things to appropriate subpages. And we aren't losing any detail since there are several subpages about these individual species/villains, as well as the general catch-all list for DW monsters. --M ASEM (t) 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering rationale (4) above, I might leave off the Sontarans, so the current summary of three primary villains (with Davros mentioned inline) seems like a good solution. aprock (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps even the Cybermen. are they so well-known that they're recognisable as such out of context? I mean, dalek and tardis are part of the language now, can we say that for anything else? that's what i take iconic to mean. For example, I would regard Doctor Watson as an iconic character because people know who he is without having watched or read a single Sherlock Holmes story. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if they aren't iconic outside of the show, they are one of the top three appearing villains and survived the transition from old to new series in spades. There is no other monster or villain that is close to the number of appearances as these three, so it sets a nice inclusion "barrier". (If it were the case that the Cybermen only had 10 appearances, and the next, say, Sontarians, had 8, it would be hard to argue why not include the latter.)  --M ASEM  (t) 22:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Using google only as a barometer, Cybermen gets 3x as many pages as Sontarans. I suspect that's indicative of the relative cultural gap between the two.  More concretely, if push came to shove I would support mirroring the BBC list before removing Cybermen. aprock (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for purposes of sources, I guess, the BBC homepage for the classic series: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/ which has links to the episodes of each Classic Doctor's era as well as episodes that featured the Daleks, Cybermen, Master, Davros or Sontarans. Comics (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could we, per WP:PRIMARY, find a source that isn't the station that makes the series (and wants to push its product)? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to suggest a slight different approach, if not exactly objective. Say 'Dalek', 'Davros' or 'Cyberman' to just about anyone who grow up in the UK (and, I sure, in plenty of other places) and you *know* you are going to conjure up an image in their mind with no further prompting.  The same is true of the 'Master' - except that the image is going to be more vague: a shadowy, slightly gothic, villainous intellectual (sort of Dracula meets Moriati).  They have the same kind of iconic stature as, in a different context, say the Borg or Klingons.  Sontarans don't even come close - and they are probably the next most 'iconic' (with the possible exception of the more recent 'Ood' since they are visually very distinctive).  The Sontarans are certainly not as iconic as any of the following: the TARDIS, the theme tune, Galifray, the Doctor's regeneration.

What was the name of that episode and isn't it worthy to be mentioned?
Could anyone please help? I have seen an episode of Doctor Who recently about ex-gay therapy where the main hero was a gay denying it and so on. What is the name of that episode? Where can I find it? And, isn't it a good thing to mention in the description, too? They have shown, from medical perspective, how dangerous that therapy is. That will definitely be also of interest to the LGBT portal. Thank you. Այնշախոր (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you please be more specific? For example, which Doctor was in it? The 9th and 10 Doctor's companion Jack Harkness is openly bisexual for example. Regards  So Why  19:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I honestly can't recall any episodes about ex-gay therapy. Comics (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No such episode in Doctor Who or any of the spin-offs. I can't think of any SF TV show with an episode like that. Sorry. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Zygons, Sil and Thals
I thinks the Zygons should be added the the infrequent appearances section, they have been in double the serials then Sil (Who I think should be deleted), plus has a few novels are about them. Also maybe Thals could be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.139.104 (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Zygons have only had one main appearance on television Doctor Who Etron81 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sil's appeared in two serials, the Zygons in one. 'Infrequent' means 'Not occurring often; rare'. Sil appeared in two serials, he didn't appear often. The Zygon's appeared in one serial, they appeared once. Perhaps they've appeared in more novels than Sil: however, this article is predominately about the TV series. The average person is more likely to have seen the TV series than read the books at any rate. The Thal's aren't even adversaries, so I don't know if you're smoking something there. Comics (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need any of them, I agree 100% with not putting Zygons. We should delete Sil because if we keep Sil we end up adding to many others like Cassandra, Mara, and Borusa. the only thing with the Thals is they are more nuetral and we have some species listed who are not all evil to (Silurian, Ood, and Sontarans) and the Thals we evil in the begining. But I don't think any should be added/kept, but I will leave it how it is. The Thals are pretty recurring in the old sereis ,too


 * As it is, the Silurians have been adversaries in 4/5 of their appearances, the Ood in 2/4, and the Sontarans in 5/6. The Thals have been adversaries, to the best of my knowledge, in 0/3 appearances. They were allies in The Daleks, allies in Planet of the Daleks, and helped the Doctor to stop the Daleks in Genesis of the Daleks. If we want to have some kind of buffer, maybe a certain amount of replies from Google search could help? Eg; 'ice warriors doctor who' brings up 17 million pages, but 'thals doctor who' brings up just short of 1 million. 'sil doctor who' brings up 4 million, however. Comics (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, 'meddling monk doctor who' brings up 145K. Not saying Google is the be all and end all, but if you want to establish notability it can be handy. Comics (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I still think all 3 are unnessecery and should be "Deleted" as the Cybermen say, but I leaving it.

Addition to "revelations about the Doctor" section
For further proof that the Doctor used to be a father, "A Good Man Goes to War" makes a point of the Gallifreyan cradle. Or are we waiting for the current season to be over to mention this?

Spoilers.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.245.62 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't censor things just because people might consider it to be a spoiler. However, I think that is an interesting interpretation, my interpretation was that it was meant to be his cradle. However, someone needs to have published a interpretation before we write about it. Edgepedia (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Edgepedia is absolutely correct. Our interpretations of the material do not rise to the level of reliables sources. Without those, we cannot include the information. As well, Edge is correct in that we do not censor material that might be a spoiler. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Series vs. season
My understanding is that when we are discussing a UK series, we use UK terms to describe it. In the US, we call each grouping of episodes for a television show a 'season', whereas in the UK it is called a 'series'. Yet, I am noting a fairly experienced editor reverting in season, which I am finding a bit surprising. Did the rules regarding this change drastically recently? I observed no End of Times occurrences, so I presume that it has not. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the originals may have been known as season but the article is written in British English so i feel we should refer to as series. The current set are defiantly known as series. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Defiantly, or definitely? lol - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally, you are correct. But what you are referring to is a question of style but a policy like Verifiability trumps those guidelines. In this case, "season" has been used by almost all reliable sources for the classic series (including the BBC!), even though it's an UK show, and if that's what reliable sources say, we use it. There is a huge discussion about it in the archives (see Talk:Doctor_Who/Archive_18) that addresses and explains it.
 * On a side note, it was not DonQuixote who edit-warred over this but you. The first change was by an IP, his was the revert, so per WP:BRD, you should have come here first, not reverted (twice) again. Consider this a formal warning that you will be blocked if you continue such behavior. Regards  So Why  20:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning, and note that I was under the impression I was preserving policy and guidelines. Your warning seems a bit more gimlet-eyed than usual (maybe a little bit more AGF would be appropriate on your part, pls). And frankly, seeing that an archived discussion almost a year and a half ago seems to have settled on the use of series versus season, both in fact as well as practice, I see no reason to change it now - especially since there appears to be no current consensus ont he matter. If a new discussion for a consensus needs to take place, this would appear to the more disruptive venue for it to take place. I am sure there are noticeboards where a better discussion could be played out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, issuing a warning was assuming good faith. If I wasn't, I'd have blocked you right away because you did in fact revert twice even when you saw that people opposed those changes. Regards  So Why  21:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * definitely was the correct word. As i said the originals were known as season the new ones are series. Does anyone know if this was something that was common at the time or is this unusual. Would a hidden note next to this help stop future reverts.Warburton1368 (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I though so! Damn you, autocorrect! Apparently, SoWhy seems to think it is a question of verifiability as well. This is growing interesting. I can imagine the thousands of articles about UK programmes and the individual episodes of those series/seasons that are going to be needing updating. I am not seeing the consensus from the archive that SW was alluding to. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A few other general comments:
 * There is also an earlier, shorter discussion at Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 6.
 * The guideline at WP:WHO/MOS is still in place - WP:WHO/MOS.
 * WP:ENGVAR and WP:MOS, of which it is a subsection, are also guidelines.
 * Guidelines are by nature flexible and written with the understanding that there are going to be exceptions. The exceptions though should not become the rule - not an issue here - and should have a good reason for existing. That explanation seems to have been made last time this was brought up and nut-shelled by SoWhy.
 * - J Greb (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, we do not call any UK programme's - or is it now going to be show's, since all the sources call it such? - groups of episodes series anymore? That sounds like a LOT of work. I do not envy you your task in changing them all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, we do not call any UK programme's - or is it now going to be show's, since all the sources call it such? - groups of episodes series anymore? That sounds like a LOT of work. I do not envy you your task in changing them all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, this is a distracting argument. Anyone knows that one could pull up dozens (if not more) citations that note the term 'series' being used instead of of season - usually from within the UK, Australia and pretty much the rest of the world outside the US. I just quickly checked and saw at least seven references to to series in place of seasons, and I wasn;t even looking that hard (since I am at work) This seems a Ameri-centric view couched as a verifiability issue. If it were a V issue, what do we do when we have an equivalent number of references referring to a term by two different names? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I note that the American DVD releases all say "series" although the downloads on Amazon.com say "Season". Certainly, the producers are sticking with UK wording even in the American market.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can, please do. We know that official media (see the Official BBC Homepage for the first Season of the Classic series for example) and reliable sources use "season" but I don't see any sources to contradict it. Wikipedia exists based on discussion and consensus, so show us those sources, then we can discuss. :-) Regards  So Why  22:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can this discussion be centralised at the project talk page please? It does cover more than this page, and it's confusing to have to moniter two seperate sections on the same subject. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who, thanks. U-Mos (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem - I like centralized discussions too, where appropriate. Do you want me to address those citations there, SoWhy?
 * WickerGuy,I don't think its a conscious decision to enforce series on the US, or to change it to cater to the Americans (much like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was altered to Sorcerer's Stone for the US market). I think they are just selling the DVDs in the same box in box places. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)