Talk:Doctor Who series 11/Archive 1

2017 Xmas special
Why is the 2017 Xmas special listed here as series 11? The citation given puts it in series 10. It appears to be a part of the series 10 filming block, not series 11's. Bondegezou (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Specials are not actually part of any series or production blocks (with a few exceptions, that being "The Snowmen", or "The Return of Doctor Mysterio"), and given that it is not currently included in the series 10 article (with the special airing 6 months after the series concludes), it makes more sense to include it here. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest it would make more sense to add it to the series 10 article. The citation given says it is part of series 10. It would be OR for Wikipedia to decide it's part of series 11. Bondegezou (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that a more solid decision could and should be made after Series 10 has concluded, when more information about the 2017 Christmas special becomes available. For now, it is not display anywhere in the mainspace. Again, this is a draft article; the content is not necessarily held down as strictly by guidelines. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Series 10 info and other edits
User:AlexTheWhovian, I don't entirely understand your edit summary where you reverted me. How is Michelle Gomez saying she'll be in series 10 relevant to a series 11 article? It's pure WP:CRYSTAL to include something about her here. Likewise, why so much space given to detailing the series 10 companions when the only bit relevant to series 11 is that nothing has been said? We have other articles with the details: we just need the basics here.

Also, Moffat has not "confirmed" that Dr Who will be on for another 5 years. That is not within his power, nor a decision the BBC would take. That's why I changed it to "predicted". The source is a BBC News article: it's one bit of the BBC covering an entertainment story that concerns another bit of the BBC, not an official BBC pronouncement. Bondegezou (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The River Song quote is also very weak. Anything that vague might be OK in the River Song article, but it looks like OR to include it here. Bondegezou (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note the section that states that there is no news concerning series 11. This is basically simply connecting series 10 to this series with possible cast and characters for the upcoming series - the content is basically simply a placeholder for future news. Typically, yes, this would not be acceptable in a mainspace article, but this is a draft not typically viewable to the passing-by public, and therefore does not need to apply to guidelines as strictly.
 * The statement of Doctor Who continuing until 2020 has stood in the parent article for months, and not one editor has had an issue with it. When the official BBC website states "Doctor Who will remain on TV for at least another five years", with an explicit "will", this is confirmation of BBC's actions, not a prediction. The source for River Song may be vague, but it does still state that she may return. Again, it's a draft, it doesn't need to adhere strictly to what should or should not be added.
 * If there is no further information relating to the characters and cast and the eleventh series when the article is moved to the mainspace after filming has commenced, then yes, it should be removed. Also, to continue editing collaboratively, one should begin a discussion first if there is disputed content, instead of mass-removing an editor's contributions. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The 'D' comes after the 'B' in WP:BRD, Alex. I boldly removed, you reverted, we're discussing. I lack the precognitive powers to know what will be disputed content before it's disputed.
 * The point of a draft is to get something ready for mainspace, so that's what I was doing. I don't quite see the point of having content here that we know will be removed before the article goes to mainspace...?
 * The River Song citation makes no mention of series 11, so looks like OR to include it here.
 * The BBC News article about the show's future is clearly not an official statement (BBC News is clear that it covers entertainment stories about the BBC, but has editorial independence); it carefully makes clear that it is quoting comments made by Moffat. After the bit you quote, it adds "according to its executive producer Steven Moffat." That is not a confirmation of the BBC's actions. Bondegezou (talk)
 * a) Given that this article won't be in the mainspace for at least a year, a lot of information can be released in that timespan, so the quality of this draft is not necessarily a value of high concern. b) The article mentions that River Song could return - given that there has been no confirmation of this for Series 10, that would indicate Series 11 or onwards. Where else would you put it? c) Moffatt is speaking about the actions that the BBC has taken upon the series. Stating that it is not "a decision the BBC would take" is OR in itself. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand what you think the purpose of an article in draft space is...?
 * I see no need to include the River Song quote here. I'd put it either in the River Song article or nowhere: it's one of those empty things people say in interviews. She "might" come back. Well, of course, she might come back. It is possible. Moffat, indeed, makes that clear in what he says. It's not a prediction that she is likely to come back.
 * I see nothing in Moffat's comments that demonstrate that this is a statement about a formal BBC decision that has been taken. It is sensible to interpret material in the context of what we know, and we know that TV series are not usually guaranteed 5 years ahead. My solution is to omit the quote entirely (thus ensuring no OR) or to phrase it less strongly (again, reducing any risk of OR). Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To start the possibility of an article; basically a loose gathering of information, however solid or not, until more reliable content comes along and it begins to become ready for the mainspace. Which, again, won't be the case for at least a year. And concerning the quotes, the issue here is with our interpretations of it. Personally, I don't believe it to be OR, but that's just me. Perhaps it's best to wait for other editors to comment on the discussion you started at the talk page of the parent article. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 14:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Jamie Childs' production block potentially including episode 7
IMDb seems to think that Jamie Childs will be directing epsiode 7. Is there a way to verify this? If it is correct, it should be added to the Series 11 episode table. --AnyOldBiscuit (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to reply. --AnyOldBiscuit (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Already included in production blocks table, and including it in the episode table would cause too many blank episodes between episodes 2 and 6 inclusive. --  Alex TW 13:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2018
Edit the Block 2 Section as we know the episodes filming for Block 2 and the Director Mark Tonderai is the Director and the Episodes in Question are Episodes 2 and 3 Here's the source: http://cultbox.co.uk/news/doctor-who-series-11-it-looks-as-if-a-new-director-has-been-revealed?utm_content=buffer5646c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer PikaPlayzHD (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ The entire article is based upon an unverified twitter account and screenshots, which are against Wikipedia's policies for reliable sources. Please provide an official or reliable source. --  Alex TW 17:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2018
Find a source to the 10 episodes claim, if no sources are found either remove the claim completely or add a citation needed tag. LordOfGardens (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ Already sourced in the article. --  Alex TW 08:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Since you reverted my edit again with no explanation, a likely sign of WP:EW, I'll start a discussion here for you. What is used is a report from the BBC itself, and "might" has different meanings. Much like how you "might" not like it, but it's valid. Same thing. --  Alex TW 07:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The BBC source does not support the October claim. The radio times link is not suitable as a claim that the air date has been confirmed. GimliDotNet (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It does support the October claim, and that's the reference I'm talking about. It clearly states October, with the alternate definition of "might" that I've now explained twice. It's not a "might" such as you might get a lolly, you might not, but more of a you might not like it, but no-one's getting a lolly. --  Alex TW 07:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * no. You said it was sourced to the BBC. The BBC article makes no mention of October. You're relying on a third party saying it "might" air. The text in the lede gives far too much credence to this rumour GimliDotNet (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is sourced to the BBC. BBC official, no third party. --  Alex TW 07:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. I give up. Clearly WP:OWN issues with this article. You keep reporting informed rumours as fact if that makes you happy. GimliDotNet (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly you don't understand that BBC is the official broadcaster of the series and thus is the most reliable source there is for the series and article. It's okay. You don't get what "third-party" means, I understand you. You'll learn. --  Alex TW 07:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the merits of the particular debate above, can I remind all that Wikipedia policy is clear that WP:independent, WP:secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. The BBC is not "the most reliable source there is for the series and article". It is a non-independent, primary source and alternative citations are preferred. Bondegezou (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. BBC could say that the series will be airing October 14, and we would be required to take that for its word. Chris Chibnall could say the same thing, but we could debate that, as he has no say on when the series airs. Hence, BBC takes precedence. Especially given that BBC would actually be a secondary source - the primary source for the eleventh series of Doctor Who would be the episodes of the eleventh series of Doctor Who themselves. --  Alex TW 08:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that would be acting contrary to Wikipedia policy, as per WP:independent and WP:secondary. The BBC is not independent of the subject, nor is Chibnall obviously. We must favour a source unconnected to the series where possible, although some use of primary sources and self-sourcing (WP:SELFSOURCE) is allowable for simple matters like an air date. Bondegezou (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, yes or no. We cannot and should not add unconfirmed content whipped up by anyone. SELFSOURCE is about a person; if it were about a company, what we are adding is not the BBC reporting about the BBC, but about something they own, hence SELFSOURCE still does not apply. And again: the primary source for the eleventh series of Doctor Who would be the episodes of the eleventh series of Doctor Who themselves (i.e. if we added content with a source of an episode), not the BBC. --  Alex TW 12:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, we "should not add unconfirmed content whipped up by anyone". No-one has suggested doing that, so I'm not certain what point you are making...? We should follow WP:RS. WP:SELFSOURCE does not explicitly say it is about a person, but, whatever, the primacy of independent sources is clear. Identifying_and_using_independent_sources gives as an example that "Production company website, publishing company website, website for the book/album/movie" are not independent sources for a "Book, record or movie". Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction says, "Publications affiliated with a particular work (such as fan magazines) are mostly not considered suitable secondary sources about the primary works." In other words, the BBC is not the preferred source for material on a show they make, broadcast and sell. Bondegezou (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your quotes from guidelines, essays and Methods of Style (in that order, and even though we're not even talking about "writing about fiction"...?) are greatly appreciated. Nevertheless, I will most certainly be sticking to the BBC as the preferred source for material on a show they make, broadcast and sell, as I consider them the only official source. --  Alex TW 13:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then it would appear to me that you will be acting in violation of community agreed standards, which is not the sort of attitude I expected from you given your admirable commitment to Wikipedia and editing. Bondegezou (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Returning to the original issue, what's clear is there is no source, primary, secondary or other, that confirms an October return for DW. The article cited refers to viewers possibly having to wait until October to see the logo. In no way is that a confirmation of an October return; it's not even discussing the series broadcast. (Yes, I know, if we see the logo, it's logically in the episode titles, but we don't know for certain, and the BBC may show the episode at a fan event or in a theatrical release ahead of the eventual broadcast.) I checked BBC America's site; it does same-day promotion and broadcasts and has nothing about a projected return date. I think Alex is hiding behind a spate of policy references to force in an edit only he believes is accurate. I've seen this M.O. and corresponding blind determination before (remembering Victoria in particular). Alex, sometimes you have to accept that you haven't got it right, and be a little patient. The BBC will announce a broadcast date before too long, it will be all over the British and American TV media when it does, you'll have secondary sources to burn and everyone will be happy. In the meantime, there's no consensus for inclusion of the date, so it's buh-bye for it. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  19:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't make further comment to you, due to how you only seem to appear to attack me and revert anything I edit. I thought you were too busy for discussions (exhibit Wayward Pines)? Something smells like a hound. --  Alex TW 00:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * that last edit was totally unacceptable. You continue to display major issues of WP:OWN, you outright lied in the edit summary (the reverse was explained in two places). GimliDotNet (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I kept out the October bit due to consensus. It's still premiering this year. Why did you revert? --  Alex TW 05:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just my two bits, the source we cite now is a little weak. It'll be better if we find a stronger source that we can quote directly. (See talk:Jodie Whittaker for a similar discussion). DonQuixote (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Don, just a comment about the source you removed. I think/believe it supported the "it officially began in November 2017" part of the sentence, as the article was posted on 9 November 2017, and stated "The Broadchurch and Trust Me star has begun filming as the 13th Time Lord." Cheers. --  Alex TW 13:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, direct quotes are preferable. Unless it says something like "has begun filming today" or "this week", it's not a strong source for that claim. DonQuixote (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How's 12 November 2017: "Bradley confirmed that his time on the TARDIS officially gets going when he starts filming next week."? --  Alex TW 14:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's great! DonQuixote (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll add it in! --  Alex TW 01:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * (Indent aligns to the post to which I am replying) Good lord, Alex, get over yourself. How typical of you, especially when you know you're wrong: don't deal with the issue, go on the attack.  GimliDotNet is absolutely right about your WP:OWN behavior, which gets worse all the time; look at the bad-faith manipulation of the consensus discussion (remove October, retail equally unsourced 2018).  You've just got to be right and got to have the last word.  And yet you remain in total denial about your own role in edit war after edit war.  Worse, WP:NPA is an alien concept to you (cf:  your latest ignored edit warring report against me, and the charming discussion on Thin Skinned One's talk page.)  Thank you for validating everything I said to NeilN.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  22:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, Doc, good on you for getting back into the community! Glad to see none of those self-admitted "hit and runs", ey? I do know I was wrong, that's why I didn't reinstate October, because I understand and follow WP:CONSENSUS - you yourself have commented on my knowledge of policy, I can find it if you wish? 2018 is most definitely reliably sourced; how typical of you to say so, especially when you know you're wrong. Remind me who had the most recent several edit wars by other editors? And... "WP:NPA is an alien concept to you", then you say "Thin Skinned One"? Practice what you preach, preacher. Anyways. Back to the topic at hand. --  Alex TW 01:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Restored in the lead (by another editor), BBC-confirmed (still the most reliable source) for an airdate "by October". --  Alex TW 02:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no comments today, I'll add one. The BBC finally got around to issuing an official release date. October 7th, 2018. Robertjm (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's because this discussion was concerning the validity of October as a release "month" given the original source, and not concerning the release date itself. --  Alex TW 22:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Query
Is October official now? I ask because it's back in the article. --Mondo Beer (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It was never removed from the article. --  Alex TW 11:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

episode 9
they've announced that episode 9 of series 11 is called the witch finders by joy Wilkinson. Could you please add that. On the fandom wiki for series 11, it states the episode there. 79.69.219.69 (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound like a reliable source. Do you have a link? Closeclouds (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ Wikia's are not a reliable source, as they, just like Wikipedia or IMDb, are user-generated. --  Alex TW 13:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Close the page for not confirmed accounts
The page is constantly getting vandalized GFruet (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We know, it's already been requested. --  Alex TW 01:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alex! It's so sad that some people enjoy to do this. GFruet (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * protected the page until January 22, 2019, so until a couple of weeks after the entire series (and special) concludes. --  Alex TW 01:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * though it looks like they have stopped, I've teporarily protected series 10 as well --regentspark (comment) 02:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Script Editor
The role of 'Script Editor' seems to have been reinstated for each episode, but there are also credits for 'Script Supervisor' and 'Assistant Script Supervisor'. However, Sheena Bucktowonsing is credited on each episode broadcast to date as 'Series Script Editor' which suggests she is overseeing the script editing role for the entire season. Is this worthy of notation in the production section of this article? I believe it's the first time such an oversight role has been credited.173.167.111.149 (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2018
9 million viewers for The Ghost Monument according to BARB. 212.113.197.18 (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ Wait until it's included in the given header source. --  Alex TW 13:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ratings template
Recently, I have made use of Television episode ratings/consolidated to sum up all of the separate ratings information on this page, as it is all series-specific and spread across multiple articles. Bar the four-screen data, no information here is new, all is already included in the episode articles and this very same article, and reflects the thousands of articles using Television episode ratings. Are there any guideline-based or policy-based disagreements for the use of this template? --  Alex TW 08:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The consolidated ratings are also new and not in the specific episode articles. Each of the four-screen ratings aren't of interest to the average reader. Matt14451 (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Consolidated ratings are the weekly ratings released a week after the episode's aired. They're in the articles, 10.96 and 9.00. Read again. So, you don't agree with the four-screen ratings. So: Are there any guideline-based or policy-based disagreements for the use of this template? --  Alex TW 09:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * When I said consolidated ratings I meant the column labelled consolidated ratings, e.g. 1.892 for The Ghost Monument which is not in that article. I don't disagree with those figures being in the articles. There doesn't need to be guideline-based or policy-based disagreements, you don't have any either and you're the one trying to get a consensus. Can throw WP:TRIVIA in there if you really want. Matt14451 (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are acceptable per WP:CALC, a policy. There does when you have that level of opposition to it, else it's nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have the backing of thousands of articles that use identical templates to display identical content. It's certainly not trivia, as overnight and consolidated ratings are discussed heavily when it comes to British series, especially Doctor Who, which is why so many articles mention whether they were the highest or lowest in the programme's history for each episode, as well as the AI, which is also used pretty heavily in regards to the popularity of an episode (and how "Journey's End" has the highest, for example). --  Alex TW 10:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What articles use "identical templates"? Give examples. Other DW articles don't have these. Just because other articles does something doesn't mean its right here. The four-screen data information is definitely trivia which is only relevant when looking at how an individual episode performs on different platforms. The individual episodes should have more in-depth ratings information so if you say consolidated ratings are only relevant in exceptional circumstances why should they all be included here. The responsibility is yours to provide policies to support the change. Stop splitting discussions across multiple talk pages. Matt14451 (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All the articles that uses the templates. View the template then click "What links here". All the thousands of articles that use all the US version, they're different versions of the same template. There is widespread consensus to use the template. If you disagree with the use of consolidated ratings, why are they in the episode table? In the episode articles? Series 11 has had the highest ratings in years, that's series specific information. No policy required, do you say that to EVERYONE who edits ANY page? No? If we remove the trivia, there's been no reason given by you for not having it anymore other than IDONTLIKEIT. No splitting, this discussion is about the table, the other us about you and me. --  Alex TW 11:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The consolidated figures aren't in the episode table, I have already given you an example of the consolidated figures. You are adding BOLD content to an article so its your responsibility to gain consensus, not my job to give policies, etc to oppose you. Only a discussion about the content is necessary. Matt14451 (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are. What's in that column is the difference between overnight and consolidated, and that is allowable by CALC. And yes, it is your job when you're the one disagreeing with it. You have no longer have any justifiable reason for deleting it. You haven't responded to of my responses to your disagreements. Should I dot point them instead? Else, there is no point in deleting it. --  Alex TW 12:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have already said, the consolidated figure for The Ghost Monument is 1.892, that is not listed in the episode table so stop claiming it is. The episode table lists the total viewers, that's different. I responded before deleting the discussion on my talk page, it wasn't appropriate for that location and you were ignoring what I was saying again. Where is a similar table included in a UK series? The figures used in the US versions are different. It's your job to get consensus for your edits when they are opposed. Matt14451 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I've reverted, The Walking Dead (season 7), Friends (season_2) and Game of Thrones (season 7) are just a few examples of ratings being used for each series, Whilst Alex was indeed bold I'm not seeing any valid reason to remove other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, By all means start an RFC but as it stands Alex's edit was uncontroversial and like I said there was no valid reason to remove/revert. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex is free to start a RfC since they are his edits so it's his job to defend them. Those examples are US and include different information, less figures. How is the four-screen data relevant. The edits were definitely uncontroversial. Matt14451 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No RFC needed. No other opposition has been voiced. I'm glad you think they were uncontroversial. Without controversy. --  Alex TW 12:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're free to start a RfC or not. That was a spelling mistake, your edits were controversial, don't have time to spellcheck for timewaster. You don't have consensus. Matt14451 (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Nor do you own the page. See WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, points 3 and 4. Especially 4. You need to provide policies and the like to explain your revert. --  Alex TW 12:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * When did I say I own the page? That isn't in the case of a bold edit. Matt14451 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See OWNBEHAVIOR as I said. --  Alex TW 12:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said that doesn't refer to bold edits. I gave policies above anyway. Matt14451 (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that anywhere in OWN. At all. Nowhere in OWN does it allow OWN based on BOLD edits, that's made up. You no longer have the consensus. Thanks. --  Alex TW 13:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have no excuse for reverting my revert. It doesn't mention BOLD edits like I said. P.S. You can't ban me from your talk page, if I want to post there then I will. Improve your attitude. Matt14451 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Er, yes Alex can ban you from his talk page, or at least remove all of your comments (so basically banning you) per WP:OWNTALK where it says users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. And how the hell can you say Improve you attitude where it's you whose accused Alex of vandalism completely wrongly? Ted  Edwards  14:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Er, there's a difference between removing comments and banning. I kept removing his comments yet he thought it appropriate to just keep adding them back, double-standard again. He added his BOLD content after I removed it, that is grounds for a warning. Matt14451 (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please take behaviour-related comments to the appropriate venue; this talk page is for content-related comments. Thank you. --  Alex TW 14:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the "appropriate venue" then? I can think of many examples where you haven't followed that advice like in our other conversations. "Thank you". Matt14451 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Alex for this edit. I have however reduced the number of decimal places from 3 to 2 for the consolidated viewership, because you can't justify them to 3 d.p. as the overnight viewership is only given to 2 d.p. Ted  Edwards  13:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No problems, glad to help. And you're quite right, I didn't think of that. Thanks! --  Alex TW 13:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Four screen
Now that there's editors to have a civil discussion with, what's everyone's thoughts on the four-screen data? It's brand new, and if it didn't exist, the consolidated viewers would likely be listed at 10.56 million TV viewers, but now that we have them, they've increased the viewers significantly. Too much detail or fine as is? --  Alex TW 13:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - So now you want to have a content discussion? Matt14451 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the consensus is to keep it, and there are editors here who actually wish to have a civil discussion about the table. And "opposing" for no reason, this isn't an RFC. --  Alex TW 13:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - I like it, it's different. I think such forward thinking ideas should be embraced on Wikipedia. If there was something similar for American television shows I would support that too. Esuka323 (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - If we've got the info from reliable sources, why not include it? And I agree with Esuka's comment, we should being including forward thinking ideas. These are great for Wikipedia's growth. Ted  Edwards  14:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see a problem with the layout and I think the breakdown of different viewing devices will be of interest.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018
Change the Christmas special date to TBD.

There's no announcement from the BBC (not even officially that there is a special). I don't see how The Express as a single source is reliable on this (in the same way that the Mirror isn't reliable for it being on New Year's Day). It's essentially speculation at this point to assume anything about the date, which seems to go against any number of Wikipedia policies. Just leave it at TBD until the BBC confirm, that leaves out the possibility of anyone being misled in the meantime and is more in keeping with an encyclopedia. 2.24.17.179 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ The source states 25 December and thus can be used as it conforms with WP:V and WP:RS, neither of which have guidelines concerning one person's personal view. Furthermore, The Express is a reliable sources, whereas The Mirror is a tabloid that focuses a great deal of their work on speculation and rumours. --  Alex TW 23:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ (pinging ) If I had noticed it was the Express, I would have removed it earlier, so thank you 2.24.17.179 for bringing this up. Yeah, Alex, the Express is just another unreliable tabloid, (it's one of those tabloids that puts random words in capitals in the header). See Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. Ted  Edwards  23:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , opposing an already answered edit request is in extremely bad faith; a discussion should have ensured before any other action was taken. Your personal opinion is noted. --  Alex TW 23:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , you made a misintrepretation based on a sources reliability, the lack of which is supported by a standing consensus, which is linked to in the link I gave you, so I've given no personal opinion. And how dare you say my edit was in extremely bad faith? That is grossly insulting and I don't know what else to say. Ted  Edwards  23:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No matter your personal opinion, if an edit request has been answered and you disagree with it, you need to discuss it first before changing it. I recommend you look further into these situations. --  Alex TW 23:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that the Express is not reliable, you didn't know that, fair enough, you can't know everything and I'm not the least bit annoyed about that one thing. However, this edit request is not going to change that consensus, and so the edit request needed changing, hence my edit. And I haven't given any personal opinion, my statement about the Express is supported by consensus. Ted  Edwards  23:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. Please look further into protected edit requests and answering them. Thank you. --  Alex TW 23:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

the only thing it says in WP:ER that's relevant to this discussion it to take into account relevant Wikipedia policies such as neutral point of view, verifiability and reliable sourcing. When I reanswered the edit request because you made a mistake in thinking the Express was reliable, I edited the page in accordance to WP:RS because I realised the source being used wasn't satisfactory. That does not require any sort of discussion, but I said I had made the edit up above so you knew. You then hurled outrageous accusations about bad faith, which btb, is breaching WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, a behavourial guideline described as a fundamental principle and a policy. I recommend you look further into these situations. Ted Edwards  00:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Filming Blocks
A year ago it was announced that the first filming block was directed by Jamie Childs and would be comprised of Episode 1 and Episode 7. It would seem that the original Episode 7 has been swapped with the original episode 6. So "Demons of the Punjab" was the original Episode 7, but is now the episode 6. "Demons of the Punjab" was therefore in the first filming block since it was directed by Jamie Childs. So "Episode 7" and "Demons of the Punjab" need swapping round. Yes, this is original research hence why I'm putting it on the talk page, but the current filming table is inaccurate as it says Childs directed part of block 3, when this is equally unsourced. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually it was episode 9 that was part of the first filming block. "Demons of the Punjab" was filmed as part of the last one, as that is when the production crew went to Spain for filming. This article I have linked confirms that episode 9 was part of the first filming block and that the dates line up. http://cultbox.co.uk/general/doctor-who-episode-9-what-we-know — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.33.10.42 (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ --  Alex TW 01:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Ratings Table
The ratings table seems a bit confusing. Some data is not from the BARB and the four screens column needs sorting out. Thanks --Slindsell15 (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally I would say the "DoctorWho News" cites should all either be removed or replaced, It's not hard to buy a domain like "doctorwhonews.com" and then claim to know all, BARB on the other hand is official atleast as far as I know, The columns are fine imho. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't you think the four screens column is a bit confusing and messy? Why not added the tablet, laptop, and phone ratings together. Plus are the ranking columns really needed? --Slindsell15 (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * DWN has always been considered a reliable source for ratings; we use it in the header of every single season/series table for the viewers and the AI. There is no need for its removal. There is consensus to include the four-screen viewership data; see further up on this talk page, and the ranking columns are a compulsory addition per the coding of the template used; I recommend you look further into its documentation. --  Alex TW 00:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Aspect ratio
Series 11 when broadcast in the UK appears to be in a letterboxed 16:9 aspect ratio, that is with black bars top and bottom on a normal 16:9 TV set. This is as per: https://www.geek.com/television/report-doctor-who-season-11-boasts-cinematic-look-1724791/. IMDB gives the aspect ratio as 2.00:1. John a s (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Rank Confusion
In the ratings table, the rank columns are slightly confusing. Are they where the programme ranked for BBC One, or the rank for all channels? Sunday BBC One rank or entire week BBC One rank? I feel like this needs to be made clear. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Rank for all channels on day of broadcast. Made perfectly clear by hovering over the word rank. Ted  Edwards  21:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say all channels. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All ratings have always been all channels, overnight and consolidated. I don't think there's been a precedent for broadcaster-specific rankings. --  Alex TW 13:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Are the ranks really needed? --Slindsell15 (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why they are not? --  Alex TW 13:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * What's the point of showing the rank for BBC One? It actually confusing as there's two columns. The four screens data as well is confusing. Why not added the catch up data together? --Slindsell15 (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is added together, in the very next column. Please indent your replies properly, thank you. --  Alex TW 00:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Audience Reception
I am thankful for this well researched and up to date article. Still I am personally missing information and would like to propose an improvement. Under "Broadcast and reception" I think it would be good to add a chapter "Audience reception". There is by now a large debate about the change of style on the internet, e.g. (half-professional) youtube critics and the comment section (sources 1,2). A main complaint is a move of focus from entertaining SciFi with some valid lessons on social collaboration - to a focus on teaching a political agenda under neglect of the classic merits of the show. The new showrunner announced himself that he wants to educate - a feature that not many fans are looking for as dominant feature of a SciFi TV show. Besides the handcraft of the episodes, also the new writing staff receive a lot of criticism. The writers described their own scripts as e.g. "Educational, epic, emotional." or “Heartfelt, thought-provoking, timely.” (see source 3). Besides that, there is also criticism for makeing the Doctor female, part of it is clearly misoginyc. Personally I think that we are in a time of change and it is good to support diversity in the media by empowerment from the top. Still the goal is often sacrificing established, already progressive formats/shows. This movement, it's achievements and derailments will be analyzed in some decades - and wikipedia could stand out as neutral and informative source and contemporary witness when that time comes.

95.90.223.245 (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * YouTube is not considered a reliable source, and the third source focuses primarily on the writers, not the audience reception. Unfortunately, none of these can back up your comments. The writers personal comments can be included in the separate episode articles, the focus on the integrated themes can be added into "Writing and development", and the reaction to the Thirteenth Doctor is already included in that article - no need to duplicate it here. --  Alex TW 12:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

28 day ratings
Why does this page include the 28 day ratings? This seems unnecessary. None of the other Doctor Who series pages include 28 day ratings.Gwigley (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I included it here only several days ago. There seems to be an WP:EDITCONSENSUS to keep them, and they were added to see how it would be received, so now I plan on adding them to the other series pages as well. --  Alex TW 01:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding onto Alex's reply, just because we don't do something on other pages, it doesn't mean we can't do it here. T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed  E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  12:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Current Audience Reception scores per Rotten Tomatoes (Subjective)
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/doctor_who/s11/reviews/?type=user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.175.214.128 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Those aren't noteworthy until reliable secondary sources discuss them. DonQuixote (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See and  for identical discussions. --  Alex TW 23:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Cherry Picking
I think this article has been 'owned' by particular editors. The 30% audience appreciation figures at Rotten Tomatoes should be included if the critics' figure is. I haven't been a Who fan since I was a child in the early 1970s and don't much care about the state of the modern day show but I do find this article rather misleading. It seems to be a case of Wikipedia NOT being an encyclopedia at all, but a cherry-picking propaganda machine.

(86.130.188.222 (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC))
 * User generated content, such as Rotten Tomatoes' audience score, is not considered reliable. If you disagree and wish to change Wikipedia's general policy, you can start at the Village Pump. DonQuixote (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There have been multiple discussions on this. See, and  for identical discussions. Keep insulting Wikipedia, and I'm sure you'll see yourself go far here. --  Alex TW 05:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes
If you're going to include the 96% Rotten Tomatoes rating from official reviewers, you should probably also include the audience score (currently 53%). Including one without the other is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.15.91 (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, short answer, no. The 96% is from many different critics, of which there not many of, and the general consensus across Wikipedia is that this is a number we can quote. The 53%, however, is generated from a small number of fans, and does not represent the widespread view of fans, it's only ones who bother to give it a rating. Think about it, 986 out of over 8 million viewers. So the audience score is pretty dubious. It's also not misleading, we're only saying the critics like it, we make no mention of the fans. T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed  E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  17:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * So let me get it straight: 38 critics is "many" and 3121 user reviews is a "small number"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.119.168.27 (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 38 out of 50 critics is many compared to 3121 out of 7,000,000 people, which is definitely a small number. Learn some science. DonQuixote (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * With respect, that answer does not make logical sense. The 96% (as the article correctly states) is based on 33 reviews.  As you correctly state, the 53% is based on 986 reviews.  You can't credibly argue that 986 is too small a number but that 33 is not.


 * You also state that the current article is not misleading because it explicitly attributes the 96% to critics. Well, no it doesn't.  The current text is:


 * "Doctor Who's eleventh series has received positive reviews. Series 11 holds a 96% approval rating on online review aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes with an average score of 7.43/10, based on 33 reviews. The site's consensus reads "Carried by Jodie Whittaker's boundless energy and charm, Doctor Who's latest regeneration manages to feel fresh well into its 55-year tenure.""


 * As you can clearly see, there is no mention of critics at all. Rather, the text makes the general claim that the series has received positive reviews.  Given the fact of the 53% audience score, that claim is untrue and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.15.91 (talk • contribs)
 * Audience ratings are not included on Wikipedia in any article. Especially given the reports that the scores were deliberately skewed. Critical reception section wording fixed. --  Alex TW 23:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Last_Jedi#Audience_reception — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.221.234.228 (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's due to the extremely high level of reception, and note that the content is all taken from and reported by reliable critical sources and not fan-based submitted material. --  Alex TW 02:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That simply isn't correct. Look at citation numbers 156 and 157.  The page directly cites the audience ratings given by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic respectively, and cites the pages themselves as sources for that information.  Furthermore, even if it were generally true that "Audience ratings are not included on Wikipedia in any article", may I remind you that, as TedEdwards told us in a different context below, just because we don't do something on other pages, it doesn't mean we can't do it here.  I thus see absolutely no reason why this page cannot and should not state what the Rotten Tomatoes Audience rating is, given the vast disparity between the critic rating and the audience rating.Gwigley (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's only because reliable secondary sources are discussing them--otherwise user scores in-and-of-themselves are not noteworthy because they're not based on controlled sampling. DonQuixote (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, there aren't many critics out there, and Rotten Tomatoes choses only professional ones, so 33 out of all the critics who write reviews about the episode is a higher proportion than 1000 out of all the viewers. T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed  E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  00:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC) But, no, the wording needed to be fixed, so thanks for mentioning that.  T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed  E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  00:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder: 5 episodes have been aired only and we have 33 reviews. Other DW seasons have less reviews, and we never included RT audience score. Even American Vandal's season 2, which is on the "MOST POPULAR TV ON RT" list, have 41 critic reviews. So, the number of critic reviews is definitely not small. Sebastian James (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I am thankful for this well-researched article. Still, looking at the audience score of 44% from >1400 viewers, I think it would be good to mention the divergent audience score. If the critics and the audience disagree fundamentally, that is normally an important information on a movie/show.95.90.223.245 (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources that comment on this separation? --  Alex TW 11:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've looked and the only secondary source I can find detailing a backlash towards Doctor Who on Rotten Tomatoes (alongside The Last Jedi) is The Daily Express, although this is one that isn't that reliable. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If spending all that time and effort results in just one article from a questionable source, then it probably isn't notable. It's probably better to concentrate on improving other parts of the article. DonQuixote (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Daily Express is indeed not reliable, per Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  23:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Blogs not appropriate
Merry Xmas all. Why I wait until it's time to put the duck (food) on, I see that has restored as a review this student film society blog. I'd removed it as failing WP:RS. AtW restored saying, "Mght not be an RS for dependent content, but this is a critical review and that is all the article is sourcing and thus is independent." I don't understand that.

Wikipedia does not use student film society blogs as sources for anything. MOS:TVRECEPTION says, "Reviews should preferably come from global media outlets (such as the Associated Press, Reuters, Canadian Press), major newspapers (such as USA Today, The Toronto Star, The Times) and major entertainment publications (such as TV Guide, The A.V. Club, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Entertainment Weekly)." WP:BLOGS says blogs "are largely not acceptable as sources." Bondegezou (talk) 09:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I redacted what follows: it wasn't to the point. Have at it (again), and happy new year. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, is David Herron's Techsparx blog a notable source worthy to be concluded here? His name, nor his blog are not ones I've ever come across when looking for critical opinion. 31.48.206.70 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good spot: I've cut it. There's plenty of material that does satisfy WP:RS and MOS:TVRECEPTION. E.g. this just came out. Bondegezou (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request
Mention in the broadcast section that the series was moved to the better sunday slot, with (IIRC) all previous series (even old who going back to 1963) being on saturday. Hundreds of RS, eg [I linked articles from granuad, telegraph, & bbc here, but wiki apparently blocks something about it], just google....v v easy to find many many RS. 92.3.150.74 (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ This was all already included, but I've moved the content to a more fittingly-titled section. (FWIW, a good couple of seasons of the classic era didn't air on Saturday; Monday and Wednesday were frequent nights as well.) -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  11:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)