Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 22

Whats the difference between 'season' and 'series'?
I've wondered this with a lot of TV-shows, but what is the difference between for example "LOST: Season 3" and "Doctor Who: Series 3"? Can't be because in America there are tons of episodes in their TV shows as I even have The Sopranos on DVD, and it is a 12-episode season/series, and says "Series 1/2/3/4 etc" on the box. I'm just wondering because, I even have some of classic Doctor Who DVDs, but they were never called season (on the box I mean), they just have the story titles. But what is the difference between a TV show having 'series' and 'seasons'? The classic Doctor Who would be better suited for serials as we all know because thats what they were, even mentions it on the article I believe. Charlr6 (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They are British/American preferred terms. Over in the UK we mostly see "Series" but in America you'll mostly see "Season". These can be used interchangeably just like spellings (labour/labor for example). So your initial presumption was correct ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, Doctor Who fandom calls the things in the 1963-1989 run of the show "seasons". This is possibly because British usage has changed since 1963, but why isn't particularly important, it's the established usage, so we use it.  Morwen - Talk 15:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Didn't know if there was a big difference or anything. And also didn't know that Doctor Who fans called the older series 'seasons', I just assumed for some reason we called it that because of how they were serials, multiple episodes for one story which would kind of fit into seasons. For example LOST even though it has stories for each episode, it is a big story over-all, but The Sopranos for example, well you don't really need to watch every single episode as there isn't a huge story arc. Charlr6 (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Most British TV shows simply aren't structured as yearly "seasons". They make a batch ("series") of episodes, and if it succeeds they eventually make another, maybe within a year of the first, maybe not.  Or such is my impression. —Tamfang (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Your impression is correct. When a show is commissioned in the UK, it is usually commissioned for 1-2 series. This practise dictates how many episodes there will be, and a budget for the entire series will be drawn up. A series may be split up when showing, sometimes by as much as 6 months, so it isn't on screen continuously (as in Doctor Who). Series, therefore, refers to a block of episodes, usually related, that are commissioned together, with a shared budget structure. So, working up, the smallest distinction is episodes. These can either make up arcs/ stories, or be standalone. Episodes/ arcs then make up a series, which in turn make up a programme. When sold to other countries or channels, programmes are sold in series batches. Earlier series of DW were usually distinguished by their use of longer arcs, made up of large numbers of episodes; between 4 and 14 usually. Nowadays, these are sold as individual stories, but if they were transmitted now, they'd probably be classed as mini-series rather than story arcs. However, as multiple of these mini-series occurred in quick succession (the week after one finished the next would begin), they have become known as 'seasons' as a way of categorising them easily. It's mostly as a way of differentiating them from the structure of the new format, and the older episodes are collectively referred to as the 'Classic Series'.


 * I believe the difference in America is that your episodes make up seasons, which in turn make up series. As such, using American terms, you'd have seasons 1, 2, 3, 4, etc of the television series Doctor Who. Whereas in the UK the term programme is interchangeable with show, in the US, series and show are the same. As such, an American season is the equivelent of a UK series, and an American series the equivelent of a UK programme. While it's not common practise, production of two series may take place simultaneously. For instance, whilst filming series 2 of Sherlock, part of series 3 was filmed to ensure continuity. It's unusual for a change of production crew midway through a series, as that's how long people are generally contracted for. If the series fails, then no new one will be commissioned. It is also very rare for a show to be 'axed', and even if it is unpopular, it will usually run to the end of its current series.drewmunn (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Close. American broadcast television (versus cable television) is organized into an annual season running roughly from mid-September to mid-May. The majority of broadcast television programs make their debuts during a given season, generally in the fall; we're in that premiere period right now. A few shows (and we do use series as a synonym for show for reasons long lost in the vapors of time), are termed "mid-season replacements" (although mid- can be used a bit loosely). They start later, as failed series are removed from the schedule and replaced. We're about to see the axe fall on a couple early and spectacular failures which must already be replaced on the schedule (who in his right mind thought a series about a mafia doctor would be successful?) A good example of a successful mid-season replacement that I believe you're getting in the UK is Castle, which started in February, 2009 and is now one of ABC's most popular scripted dramas. An average full season runs in the neighborhood of 22-24 episodes, while a mid-season replacement generally runs around 10-12 episodes. During the summer, the networks either rerun programming, or increasingly, show limited-run series or unscripted/reality programs. I know ABC has a seven-episode spring/summer series in the works that will begin in late spring, and is an adaptation of a European series. The broadcast networks have also flirted with shortened or split seasons a bit, as they did with Lost, but that's been less than a resounding success.

Cable is a different story. Their big season is the summer, when broadcast is in rerun/garbage mode (as I call reality TV.) TNT and USA began the push for new, quality scripted dramas in the summer (you should still get The Closer, which just ended here, and Burn Notice, for example.)  Now we have a number of cable networks:  AMC, A&E, SyFy and more running scripted drama during the summer season. Sometimes it's all you can do to keep up during the summer; much of the most innovative programming is coming from cable (The Walking Dead, Mad Men, The Closer, etc.) although the networks are catching on (Person of Interest being a great example.) Cable series are shorter in length, generally 13-16 episodes, are allowed to run their full seasons unless they're a spectacular failure, and increasingly, run short winter seasons of 5 or 6 episodes. They also do limited run series, like The Hatfields and McCoys, which was a huge and unexpected hit from a minor cable channel and starred Kevin Costner. Then there's HBO, Showtime and Starz! (which recently took over production of Torchwood in collaboration with the BBC); their programming starts whenever it suits them, but is still described in terms of seasons (long story why they probably used series on The Sopranos; I'm sure it's all in the article herein.) Cable is drawing more and more established actors from film because of the creativity and opportunity to create characters long-term, as well as the opportunities for actresses "of a certain age".

And then there's networks like BBC America who import programming; we get Doctor Who the same day as you do, but a few hours later for reasons that should be obvious. It's not simple, but it's a big country spread across six time zones, we have a huge number of cable channels in addition to the four primary broadcast networks, and the market is tremendously competitive. We'll never see the days of ER pulling 32 million viewers a night again because there is so much choice. These days, 10-12 million viewers is a big success. --Drmargi (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Seasons" and "series" are both used in the UK, but they tend to mean two different things. BBC TV programmes (aka series) usually run for 26, 13, 7 or 6 episodes, which lets the BBC divide the 52 weeks of the calendar year into equal chunks known as "seasons", roughly corresponding with the seasons of the year - e.g. 26 + 13 + 7 + 6 = 52, or 13 + 6 + 7 + 13 + 13 = 52, etc...


 * The two main TV "seasons" in the BBC's calendar are the New Year Season (usually starts first Saturday of January each year, runs until April/May), and the Autumn Season (usually starts the first Saturday of September, and which runs up to Christmas).


 * Over the years, Doctor Who has had new series (i.e. a run of episodes) that have started in the New Year and Autumn seasons.


 * In summary, "season" means the TV schedule; "series' means the programmes within the schedule; and those programmes themselves made up of a "series" of episodes.


 * To apply all of this to Doctor Who, it's a "programme" or "series" made of a "series" of "episodes" that screens during a "season" of programming scheduled across the BBC calendar. Jpreddle (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that "series" and "season" are sometimes used interchangably; or sometimes used where "season" refers to a group of episodes (usually airing over the course of one year) and "series" refers to all episodes/seasons of the same program put together (e.g., "the second season in the TV series"). In either case, I find it very confusing that the infobox uses the word "seasons" to refer to episodes until 1989 and "series" to refer to episodes from 2005 onwards.  I assume these mean the same thing and see no reason why they should be counted separately in this non-conventional way.


 * Perhaps it would be more clearly represented as shown in the second example here, providing an overall total together with a breakdown of the number of series in the original run and the number of series (to date) in the revival. The 1996 TV film is an anomaly which presumably isn't counted as a "series" so I haven't included it in the total for this example.


 * Can we get consensus on this? —sroc (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

To quote this talk page archive "for some reason the term "season" has become the standard in Doctor Who fandom, dating at least back to Jean-Marc Lofficier's Programme Guide (first pub. 1981) and widely used since then."; there is an FAQ on the Talk:List of Doctor Who serials that says


 * Q: Why are early series called seasons? In British English we have TV series.
 * A: Most sites, such as BBC's Classic Episode Guide, OG, and A Brief History, use the term "season" for the classic series". There's a longer discussion here. This has links to the previous discussions.

It does seem to be a problem that this article doesn't explain this, so I can understand why people are confused. Edgepedia (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is evidently an issue given that so many people have asked the question (including here, here, here, and, of course, above). I'm not a fan so I don't have an out-of-universe perspective.  Perhaps, as you suggest, an explanation in the article would help.  In any case, I think the way this is set out currently in the infobox is confusing and looks as though someone has unintentionally doubled-up on entering both the "season" and "series" fields, rather than intentionally drawing a purposeful (but not understood by the unacquainted reader) distinction. —sroc (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In a roundabout way, it is already noted in the article: "Doctor Who originally ran for 26 seasons on BBC One. ...each weekly episode formed part of a story (or "serial")". These series were then crunched together into a season. I agree it could be clearer, but there is quite a bit of semantics going on. The reason fans call early productions "seasons" (other than to differentiate from the revival), is because each season was made up of many series. Now, we get one serial a year (at best), so adding an overarching "season" isn't necessary. drewmunn talk 07:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * However the terminology is used and explained within the article, my point was simply that using both "series" and "seasons" in the infobox is confusing. —sroc (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What about some sort of footnote within the infobox, perhaps? —sroc (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Protection?
Has protection of this article ever been considered, given the very frequent vandalism the page received from unconstructive edits? Rafmarham (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What frequency? I've been watching the page for a week at least and seen hardly any edits to the page, let alone any vandalism. Protection won't be granted unless the vandalism is above the average. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 22:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, but there has been alot of vandalism on the page in the last week alone. Between 21 and 28 September 2012 I count from the articles history page 14 acts of vandalism, of which 2 involved deleting the entire contents of the page and another two were so offensive that their summaries and edits cannot be viewed. In addition to these 14, there is also another case of unexplained removal of content. I personally believe that an average of two vandalism occurances each day is unacceptable. For those interested the edits are as follows. Believe me they are there, just may not be at the top or very obvious:
 * 02.49 28 Sep (Top line)
 * 02.47 28 Sep (Top Line)
 * 20.14 26 Sep (Removed
 * 20.12 26 Sep (Removed)
 * 00.33 26 Sep (Top of History)
 * 00.32 26 Sep (Top of History)
 * 00.29 26 Sep (Top of History)
 * 10.59 25 Sep (Top of History)
 * 14.35 24 Sep (Whole Page)
 * 14.34 24 Sep (Whole Page)
 * 03.00 24 Sep (Theme Music link change)
 * 02.59 24 Sep (Awards section)
 * 23.23 23 Sep (Reference 6, change of quote to include bacon)
 * 23.19 23 Sep (History, first paragraph)
 * 03.43 22 Sep (Unexplained Removal of Content)
 * Rafmarham (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The examples you presented aren't the best but you're right. I'd support protection here ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * By protection we mean semi-protection, right? Morwen - Talk 10:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i doubt you would get permanent before a trial of semi-protection was tried anyway. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The examples may not be the best, but having to constantly search out and revert unconstructive vandalism as seen above wastes their time which could be used to improve the page. It also means that the results of the survey box is erratic (depending on whether the page they saw was vandalized or not reflects on the score) and that registered users who commit vandalism can be sanctioned. Rafmarham (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Current Companion
Just a quick note, please do not add Jenna Louise Coleman as the current companion in the infobox until after her first appearance as a series regular. Currently, there is no companion, so the infobox should reflect this. Thanks. drewmunn (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sonic, you made a very good point. 173.195.2.249 (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a very good thought and as a fan of Doctor Who I know what you mean. Just to avoid any confusion I added Jenna Louise Coleman as a possible companion that is yet to be confirmed, so people have an idea what might occur next series. But I am new to Wikipedia so if anyone has any concerns feel free to change it. (From dasher560) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasher560 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dasher560, and welcome to Wikipedia. I removed the text you added; we have a section Doctor Who further down the page, as well as an article on subject called Companion (Doctor Who) . Also, as it says at the top of this page Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and your text lacked sources and some of it seemed to be your own thoughts. Edgepedia (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of Companions, does it strike anyone else that these paragraphs have become far too detailed? For example, it's not unusual in any tv series for characters to make return appearances after an absence, but someone has used this to go on at length about the late Ms. Sladen and Billie Piper, even adding the detail about Bad Wolf from 2005, which is irrelevant. This needs a good cleaning up. Takers? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree it's too detailed, and incredibly weighted towards the 2005 revival. I'll look at it today. drewmunn talk 07:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Request
As a big fan of Doctor Who and a follower of this thread for some time, I was wonder if the community could do me a favor. We are in need of an impartial Admin over at the Tau Epsilon Phi information page. There has been huge controversy over some NPOV issues. If an Admin is available who could please stop an edit war it would be much appreciated for your time. I realize this may not be the proper place for this request but I am turning to fellow fans for help.

Cherrio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.57.25 (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Daleks
In the new series, Daleks come in a range of colours; the colour of a Dalek denotes its role within the species.

Apart from the Black Dalek, I do not recall when significance has been explicitly given to different roles for colours of Daleks--but then I have not seen every episode made since 1963 (and yes, they came in different colours in the 60s too, viz., the films featuring "Dr. Who") so it's a bit tricky to verify and therefore challenge the unsourced assertion above. Does anyone know anything more about this? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly: The white Dalek is the supreme, the blue the strategist, the red the drone, the orange the scientist, and the yellow the 'eternal'. This is explicitly mentioned when the Daleks emerge from their glorified cooker in Victory of the Daleks. drewmunn talk 08:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Companion Section
As per a discussion above, I've just rewritten/jiggled the companions section. I felt it was too long, and focussed way too heavily on companions and plot aspects of the 2005+ series. The new version is far from perfect, but I feel it condenses much better the contents of the main article. Please feel free to improve, and expand the sections on classic companions. We shouldn't give unnecessary weight to the new series, although some extra emphasis should be put on the current companion. I think extension of classic details shouldn't increase overall length too much, but some extra is probably needed to round it off a little (loads of companions, possibly notable, aren't even mentioned). I've tried to keep listing to a minimum, but it was quite difficult when cutting out so much of the padding. Some linguistic poking may help the sections that are list-ish currently, so that'd be appreciated. Thanks! drewmunn talk 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've made some minor edits, moving Martha and Jack back into the main area as it rather gives the impression that they've been forgotten till you get to the very end as it was written. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It was an attempt, albeit not a particularly efficient one, of not giving undue weight to certain companions. It also made sense (in my head at least) to miss them out of the main list as a kind of proof that it isn't exhaustive. Your's works nicely however, we'll just have to keep check on it in the future. drewmunn talk 08:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the essential idea, though it requires research into the academic area (this is a good source) would be to talk about the evolution of the companion. For instance, Ian and Barbara was supposed to provide educational insight. In the 60s there are the "young girl" companions and the "action man" companions, the latter of which abandoned when Pertwee took over and became an action-oriented Doctor, though the Brig definitely deserves a mention as a major supporting character. Then there's what Barry Letts (or was it Terrance Dicks?) said about the companion's role being the one to ask questions (and so we have Jo), and comments regarding a companion's role in the series should definitely be included, from the original series and the new. Sarah Jane is generally viewed to be the first feminist companion (though there were Zoe and Liz before her). K-9 was a robotic dog. Romana was a Time Lady. The Davison era aspired to have a soap opera-like crew. Tegan and Peri were not British. Ace was the first to have development. The new series stuff hasn't been historicized nearly as much, though I expect Rose, Jack, and Amy & Rory at least deserve mentions. (This is all just off the top of my head.) Glimmer721  talk  23:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for help
Hey, it seems as if this page has a bit more activity to it than the Yeti (Doctor Who) or Great Intelligence pages and I was just wondering if anyone would be able to assess the quality of those two pages. Sorry for taking up your time on here with this, but thanks in advance if you can help. Just trying to help improve their quality is all. Comics (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Morning! It might be worth asking on the Wikiproject Doctor Who page, as they're one of the ones who grade the articles in question. drewmunn talk 08:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Genre
I was just passing by and noticed that the genre for Doctor Who is listed as only sci-fi drama, where as some pages such as the Supernatural (U.S. TV series) has multiple genres listed. The reason I bring this up is that, especially recently, the show has been covering many different genres in different episodes. Obviously, in terms of Supernatural, the genres are present in almost all episodes across the series, compared to Doctor Who, where they are much more fleeting, however, I still think that it's something that should be mentioned under genre, perhaps simply as "Multiple additional genres throughout". --194.83.93.50 (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that'd get way too beyond the obvious, and we don't really want to go into too much specific detail. Taking into account how many episodes there have been, even if an entire series changed to comedy, the change would represent just over 1.5% of the overall show. The show has evolved with the times, and changed with the zeitgeist, but it remains a sci-fi drama at heart in every episode. drewmunn talk 14:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The short answer is that Doctor Who is a science fiction/fantasy drama that has done probably every genre imaginable at some point, but through the len of a basic concept. Glimmer721  talk  22:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put it too far into the fantasy realm, because everything is explained with copious amounts of sci-fi technobabble. In fact, quite a few episodes/stories are dedicated to showing how popular fanstastical creatures/theories are actually completely sciency. drewmunn talk 06:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(christine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.110.24.6 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, exactly. It does fantasy through the lens of a sci-fi show. Vampires? Nah, they're just aliens. A ghost? No, just a time traveler stuck in a pocket universe. At the same time, we do have stories like The Mind Robber which push their boundaries. Glimmer721  talk  01:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There was another one way back as well, but otherwise, totally agree. drewmunn talk 06:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Referenced by The Clash
In The Clash's song "Remote Control" (on their self-titled album; the US version, maybe the UK version also, I don't know) features Joe Strummer singing "Gonna(?) be a Dalek/I am a robot/I obey," starting at about 2:30 into the song. I'd add the reference but I probably don't have enough other edits to be able to edit the page.

66.31.19.45 (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)forgoodforall


 * Anyone, including yourself if you open an account, is welcome to edit Wikipedia. However, the info you mention wouldn't have a place here, but is already mentioned in the Dalek article. Thanks. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)