Talk:Doctor Who series 10/Archive 2

Draft article for Christmas special
This is just a notice that there is a draft for the 2017 Christmas special article at Draft:The Doctors (Doctor Who), until it is time to move it to the mainspace after the episode has aired. currently redirects to this article. --  Alex TW 10:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it suitable to call it The Doctors? That was used in Doctor Who News a few days back, but uterus nothing official and it may just be a working title, as has been discussed in depth on Gallifrey Base Microbat98 (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Web forums are not reliable sources per WP:RSSELF, and Doctor Who News has always been considered as a reliable source for Wikipedia when it comes to Doctor Who media. Therefore, if DWN says that is what the title is, then we can say it is too. (By the way: uterus? Wrong word?) --  Alex TW 11:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not about using web forums as reliable sources, it's about the fact that this has been covered to death by tons of Doctor Who fans over the last few days, and Doctor Who News is not an official source. Its unofficial. If you refuse to use official sources and official pieces of information, and instead rely on rumours and speculation as a form of 'source', then wikipedia is just completely unreliable.
 * 'The Doctors' may well be the title, but right now all we've got is one unreliable, unofficial source that hasn't sourced any of the information given. You can't just take an unreliable website's word for it, and I'm pretty sure you're the only Doctor Who can taking this as gospel. Microbat98 (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again: Doctor Who News has always been considered as a reliable source for Wikipedia when it comes to Doctor Who media; irrelevant if it is "official" or not. Therefore, it's your own personal opinion that it's unreliable. Now, do try to be civil. --  Alex TW 13:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For starters, I am being civil. Don't try to gain a moral high ground. If Wikipedia has always considered it a reliable source, it needs to stop. Wikipedia prides itself in giving true, official information. Doctor Who News is a fan website. Not appropriate.Microbat98 (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not the place or discussion to start another discussion against the consensus of using is as a reliable source, that needs to happen elsewhere. Given that it's being used as a source for the ratings and AIs of all 839 episodes, I doubt you'll get the result you want. It seems I'm repeating myself: it does not have to be official to be reliable. It has never given incorrect information previously. --  Alex TW 14:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Calm down, both of you; neither one of you is particularly civil at the moment. If you would both dial down the testosterone, and take a moment and look at Doctor Who News's source for the title, you'll see it's a press release from Comic Con, citing the title as "The Doctors". The press release is the primary source for the title, DWN the secondary source citing it. That makes the information, and thereby the source, reliable. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  16:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Even better. --  Alex TW 08:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Another source. --  Alex TW 09:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ComingSoon.net is not a reliable and official source either. I could also find unofficial sources giving wrong information, too, and it doesn't make it right. I can't wait for when it's revealed that The Doctors is not the official title just to prove that DWN isn't official or reliable and probably just created their own working title for it. It's kind of ridiculous and unprofessional that Wikipedia is using fansites as official and reliable information. The Doctors will not be the Christmas title, I'd be willing to bet £50 on that. Microbat98 (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a place for what you personally think is or is not reliable; that is what community consensus is for. Now, do you plan on continuing your childish tirade of "bets" and "I can't wait to say you're wrong", or do you wish to partake in this discussion like a civil and grown-up editor? --  Alex TW 16:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but you're the one being childish, as always. There's no 'consensus' here, just your opinion, which is wrong, as usual. You can't use unreliable and unofficial sources. This was two people debating and you're acting as though your word is law; as though your opinion is the be all end all consensus. Arrogant, dismissive, and just rude. Microbat98 (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Both of you knock it off. You're both determined to be right, and to have the last word. Dial down the testosterone, bear in mind that changes get made during production, including titles, then go review WP:CIVIL. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  21:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's time for you both to let this go. After your latest squabble, I backtracked the original press release about the Christmas episode from BBC America that SDCC used, and it DOES NOT include the title; SDCC added that to its program.  Given that there's no consensus on either side, and that you two will never see eye-to-eye, some tentative language about the putative first title is probably best.  A few days ago, BBC America tweeted the final 30 seconds of the season finale, which ended with a screen that said "The Doctors will see you at Christmas" followed by a second screen with details of the SDCC panel.  It seems reasonable that the assumption that the title was "The Doctors" came from the somewhat ambiguous phrasing of that screen.  Regardless, it doesn't seem to have any widespread secondary sourcing, and should be discussed carefully, if at all, in the article.  Please try to bear that in mind, both of you, instead of trying to be right/the winner.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  07:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers for your opinion. I'm actually already planning to start a RFC for the topic, to gain the consensus of the community. Thanks again. --  Alex TW 07:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see . --  Alex TW 08:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

David Bradley
I'm confused. Why was David Bradley removed from the casting section? Isn't the 2017 Christmas Special considered part of Series 10? If not, then shouldn't we remove everything else related to that special from this page?216.17.31.166 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While "The Doctors" may have been part of Series 10's production block, the episode is not part of Series 10 itself, it is a separate special. We also simply list the episode in Series 10's table (as with other Christmas specials) to make it easier to sort the "List of serials" article. --  Alex TW 23:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could we still mention his cameo appearance in the series finale? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 14:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely; re-added. --  Alex TW 14:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this is an overly fine line. It's part of the S10 production block, and thus the season. We need to think about where readers will go looking for content; the logical place to find the last episode to feature the 12th Doctor is in the article about his final season. By the logic above, this episode exists in a bubble between S10 and S11. That just doesn't make sense. We can always move/remove it later if appropriate, but for now, it needs to be somewhere, and this is the best place. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  23:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Per my talk page, and your statement of By the logic above, this episode exists in a bubble between S10 and S11, that is correct. Much like how the Sherlock special is not part of any particular series (rather, exactly how), nor is this special, meaning that information on any Christmas special should be kept solely to its own article, not a series article. The episode guide doesn't even categorize specials into any particular series. We only list them as such for convenience. Perhaps the information can be listed here while the Christmas special's article doesn't exist in the namespace, but once it has aired and has been moved to be an article, then the information should be removed from this article. --  Alex TW 00:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If the only place where details of the Christmas special for now is this page, in lieu of an actual episode page, then this is the right place to talk casting details. I know we'll have an episode article once it airs and at which point the stuff on the Christmas special will be moved off, but until then, this is absolutely the right place to include it. (And this is not suggesting removing the Christmas episode from the table now to not include this casting information). --M ASEM (t) 00:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough that. --  Alex TW 05:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)