Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989)/Archive 1

Why the split?
Why was "List of Doctor Who eerials" split into "List of Doctor Who episodes (1963-1989)" and "List of Doctor Who episodes (2005-present)"? AnyOldBiscuit (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Same reply as above: Please see the discussion for the split for the reasoning of the current title. --  Alex TW 19:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not seeing clearly but I can't see a link to the relevant discussion. This split is the most ridiculous change ever. Why do people have to change things for change's sake? This is definitely not innovation. Why can't we have nice things? Like maintaning one of the best pages on the net to access the ENTIRE history of the show. Whoever decided on this nonsense, it's wrong.Spyrides (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why can't we have nice things? Really? Is that the mature question from an editor? . "one of the best pages on the net" --  Alex TW 04:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect list of Serials
Having the list of Doctor Who Serials from 2005-present on this 1963-1989 page (especially so early in the page) is confusing as it contradicts the stated purpose of this page. Removing that information and adding a simple link to the 2005-present page after the list of 1963-1989 serials (and movie) would make sense. 220.235.165.75 (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason for my revert of your vandalism has been posted on your talk page; I recommend you realize your mistake of the page you edited. --  Alex TW 04:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For reference: It's meant to be duplicated. The only differing content is the episode tables. See the Simpsons articles for exactly the same situation with duplicated content. You also seem to have edited the wrong article and completely missed the hatnotes, but you're completely ignoring that, right? --  Alex TW 21:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you ignoring this very reasonable question in favour of bring up issues that - as you point out - have already been addressed elsewhere? This, as has been pointed out, is surely the correct forum. To get back on topic, having the list of Doctor Who Serials from 2005-present on this 1963-1989 page (intentionally or otherwise) is confusing as it contradicts the stated purpose of this page, especially so early in the page. Removing that information and adding a simple link to the 2005-present page after the list of 1963-1989 serials (and movie) would make more sense. Alternatively, if The Simpsons is somehow the benchmark of Wikipedia, shift the table to the bottom of the page as contextual information.220.235.165.75 (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I recommend taking a look at List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) - both the Table of Contents and Series Overview include the seasons after Season 20. There seems to have been no issue there, and there seems to have been no issue here, other than you. If you feel that there is an issue, then you need to gain a consensus to change either here or on the Simpsons article. What's funny is the changes you made were to the List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) article, not this article. Anyways. This article already includes a link at the very top of the article to the 2005–present article. --  Alex TW 22:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, what's funny is the changes I made were initiated on the List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1986) article, but the edit affects both pages. Anyways, so much for cheap point-scoring. The issue remains that the page in it's current state is confusing, and you haven't refuted this fact beyond "Simpsons did it". 220.235.165.75 (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But they weren't. Look at the diff. Yes, it affects both pages, but it was made on the List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) article. Look at your contributions - you have never edited List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989). I'm not going to argue this anymore, it's beating a dead horse.
 * As for its current state, it's not confusing at all. The series overview links to the correct articles for every season, and a hatnote is included on both articles pointing to the other article. You seem to understand it very well, you just don't like it. Not confusing at all. --  Alex TW 17:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My ability to understand it is irrelevant. I was confused, it was confusing, I dug a little deeper and understood enough to make it less confusing. When I made the change you decided "don't like it" and changed it back. You seem to have a lot of personal investment/ownership in these pages, the talk sections are filled with you reverting and arguing against reasonable common-sense updates like this one. A pity. 220.235.165.75 (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion has been noted. Please gain a WP:CONSENSUS. --  Alex TW 06:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are only two of us here, and when a third person appears (see "Title" above) you'll just accuse them of being a sock puppet. So I imagine you'll get to win your little turf war yet again through sheer obstinance, sadly to the detriment of these pages. 220.235.165.75 (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, turns out that they were a WP:MEATPUPPET, self admitted! So, not really an accusation. I thank them for that. At least I'm not the one who's textbook WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. --  Alex TW 11:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Title
Surely this should be 1963-96, since it goes to the TV Movie? Winter&#39;s Tulpa (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion for the split for the reasoning of the current title - this has already been addressed. --  Alex TW 14:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you addressed it; it's still stupid. This is an actively misleading title, as the list goes seven years further than it says it does. Winter&#39;s Tulpa (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * More to the point, it may have been addressed, but I see no clear consensus, and indeed more comments run in favor of 1996 than 1989, especially with the two here factored in. What reason, exactly, is there for leaving it here? Winter&#39;s Tulpa (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please remain WP:CIVIL during discussions, else you may find that editors are not willing to discuss with you. The listing is primarily for the classic episodes, hence the title, the special is simply included as it needs to be in an article. If you wish to start a discussion or RFC recommending a different title, then I recommend that you do so instead of parading around to call it "stupid". --  Alex TW 18:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a very strange bit of reasoning. Yes, I agree, the special needs to be in an article. And including it with these stories is in line with most other catalogs.. But this is not, in fact, List of Doctor Who episodes (classic series). It is a list of Doctor Who episodes within a date range, and the date range in the article title does not accurately describe the articles contents, which is a significant problem. Furthermore, there does not actually seem to be any discussion I can find leading to a consensus that this article should have a misleading title. Given that "the article title is actively misleading" would generally be considered a dispositive reason for changing it and there is no visible consensus to the contrary, can you provide a reason why I shouldn't rename it? If not, I'll go ahead and do so. Winter&#39;s Tulpa (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Using a title with 1963-1996 indicates that the classic series had a straight run for 33 years, when it, in fact, did not. Nor is the television movie an episode in the meaning of the word episode, meaning that yes, the article does indeed list the episodes from 1963-1989, with a special included, so the title is not misleading. As a second point, this article even includes a hatnote that specifically states that the special is included in this article, as does its sister article. I could list a multitude of episode articles that also list specials and don't make a note of it in the article title. If you do indeed move it while the title is being disputed in this article, and given that you have no consensus yourself (while arguing that there is no consensus, how funny that you can use your own arguments for your benefit), this can be assumed to be in bad faith. --  Alex TW 20:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, as the titles of this and the 05+ article make no mention of 'classic series' vs 'modern series', the idea that "1963-1996" would give a misleading indication about the length of the classic series is irrelevant. The job of the title is not to indicate the length of the classic series, it is to provide an accurate description of the contents of the article. If clarity on the length of the classic series is needed, the introduction to the article can make that clear. Perhaps the word "episodes" needs to change to take the film into account (if memory serves, "serials" or "stories" was used in the previous article?), but I don't have any strong feelings about that. What I do feel is important is that the title should accurately reflect the length of time the article covers, and I'm sorry, but that is 1963 to 1996. The film is mentioned in exactly the same format as every other serial in this article, and as such it seems factually misleading for the title to indicate otherwise. If indication for a growing consensus for the change is needed, please consider this a further vote in favour of it. 86.0.94.116 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 to correcting the title of this article to accurately reflect its date range of 1963-1996. A user looking for info on the 1996 movie should be able to tell from the article titles alone which one contains the relevant info.  As the titles stand, they cannot.  Gwythinn (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please learn how to sign your posts on Wikipedia, you cannot discuss properly if you do not. Please gain WP:CONSENSUS (read the policy first) for your opinion. --  Alex TW 21:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that you personally have seen me sign several comments already, it should be obvious that this was an oversight, not a need to "learn" and your comment is clearly intended as an insult. Please review WP:PA. Gwythinn (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I recommend you do the same; I think you'll find that you need to abide by the policies you preach when you start mentioning "bureaucratic nonsense", or the "Great Bureaucratic Cult of Wikipedia", and your use of policies will be found laughable when you ignore them yourself, such as when you said "regardless of what your essays, guidelines, or policies may suggest". --  Alex TW 22:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 more for changing the name of the article. I think we're starting to see actual consensus here. It seems as though none of the points made by Tulsa, Gwythinn and the IP have been well refuted, and the points made by Alex have. WP:Consensus, specifically the talk page section states "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight" - the only responses to the points raised in favour of the 1963-1996 title have been procedural Wikipedia points and are not high quality arguments to the contrary. The best argument for the status quo is that the 1996 version "indicates that the classic series had a straight run for 33 years, when it, in fact, did not. Nor is the television movie an episode" - however, I think the IP made a convincing argument that the series length is not relevant, and would suggest that, while "episodes" is not ideal, Gwythinn is right in that it is preferable for the article title to reflect the time frame it references. I think, reviewing this talk page, that it is rather clear that more people are in favour of 1963-1996 (all of whom have been able to provide good arguments), on which side the higher quality arguments are and therefore where the consensus on this issue lies. FaithHealer1 (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * +1? I'm sensing a sock... --  Alex TW 23:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me?FaithHealer1 (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 for changing the title of the article, for reasons given above. Alternatively, just have all the Doctor Who episodes and stories listed on one page. No snippy responses please! Meerta (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Dead discussion, WP:CONSENSUS holds for the split, please try again. --  Alex TW 23:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest I try? Reading this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#In_talk_pages - and reading this discussion, I must admit to being very confused.Meerta (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Redefining what constitutes as a story and the major subsequent numbering changes
I propose that we redefine what a "story" is to establish more objective criteria.

A story should instead fit the following criteria: A single epsiode or series of episodes produced by the BBC for TV (but not necessarily broadcast) that... (a) must be consecutive, (b) must be written by the same screenwriter(s) and directed by the same director(s), (c) each component episode should directly lead into the next, (d) OR ARE OTHERWISE GROUPED UNDER THE SAME UMBRELLA TITLE.

This leads to a number of changes. Firstly, "Shada" is story #109. Secondly, "Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Timelords" is no longer a 3 part story - instead it is fragmented into stories #188 and #189. Thirdly, whilst the Series 9 finale episodes "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are still separate from Face the Raven, they are unified into story #263. This makes the Series 11 opening episode story #278.

I believe that this is crucial in standardising the Doctor Who numbering system and in moving away from a more subjective system, to one that can be more closely agreed upon. Any suggestions are welcome, and a full amended list can be provided on request. I am copying this to the post-2005 page for ease of access.

AnyOldBiscuit (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, story numbers are determined by reliable sources, such as the DWM. What you are wanting is textbook WP:OR. Sorry. --  Alex TW 14:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
Since the list was split, the two lists have shared the same introductory text. But some of that text is relevant only to one article or the other. Specifically, the note about the Chinese sales through Series 15 isn't really relevant to the classic series list, and the discussion of 1960s episode titles and missing episodes isn't really relevant to the current series list. Would anyone object to removing the current templated intro text from this article, so that the two articles could have different introductions? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice callback :-) I say make what ever changes you see fit. Thanks. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that they should remain the same, as they're describing the same content, the only thing differing are the episodes displayed, since the split was primarily due to the article's size. A great standing example of this is List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) and List of The Simpsons episodes. --  Alex TW 03:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is hard to see how The Simpson pages are relevant since the show has been on the air continually since it began. A prime example here is that the paragraph about the "junked" episodes is only relevant to this list. Since none of them are part of the 05-present list it really doesn't need to be there. There are a couple other items that could be cleaned up. Stylistically the show is different in many ways since its 2005 revival so it won't hurt to have the ledes be slightly different in the two lists. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in seeing the proposed leads before they're implemented. --  Alex TW 04:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unlike the Simpsons example, there are content differences between the two Doctor Who episode lists which make some of the intro content relevant only to one list or the other. If somebody is looking at a list of "classic" Doctor Who episodes, then it is not really relevant to them that the show has been sold to China through Series 15. If somebody is looking at a list of "modern" Doctor Who episodes, then a discussion of missing episodes from the 1960s isn't really relevant to them.


 * I'll throw up an example, if you like. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good JR. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of the last paragraph (everything except the first sentence) could perhaps be moved to an explanatory footnote for this article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just rearranged the discussion a bit to keep the suggestions separate. I still don't see the need for a split, given that editors will have to read two separate but similar leads to get a full picture of the show. What about updating the episode count - do we have to update two separate articles every week now? The classic era lead still has "The 2005 revival trades the earlier serial format ..." in it. What about the series overview - why split the lead but keep the whole table? So many questions. Yes, splitting may be beneficial to separate the two articles, bu I believe that moving from transclusion is going to cause more issues than it'll fix. --  Alex TW 09:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * These are list articles - it isn't their job to give a full picture of the 54+ years of the show. There are several other articles that take care of that. As noted at WP:INTRO "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" thus, if it contains info that is not covered in the body of the article, it will cause a reader to be confused as to why an item is mentioned at all. It is also worth noting that "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions" and explanatory footnotes are a way to avoid this. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly this is a unique case, given that it's really just one article's content split across two pages, so a unique approach needs to be given for this. In the same manner as The Simpsons article, this is one show that's just been split, regardless of production methods and "eras". Note how the Seasons 1–20 article includes all the current information and renewal information up until Season 30. I also note that no answers were given to any of the questions I posed. Is there a reason? --  Alex TW 15:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes; I was sick, and hadn't been back on Wikipedia since my last comment. So, to answer your questions:
 * The purpose of these lists is not to give editors/readers "a full picture of the show". That's what Doctor Who is for. The purpose of these lists is to list all the episodes of the two major periods of Doctor Who on TV. Each list should have enough information for the material it contains to make sense.
 * The number of episodes is currently not put in manually; it's called up by aired episodes and DW episode count. If the latter is updated, the only thing that needs changing in the two articles is the date in the former.
 * If we agree to have two different intros for the two lists, we can decide what does and doesn't belong in each one. I only posted the text below because you said you wanted to see the proposed leads before they are implemented. I'm not married to it.
 * Keeping the table of seasons on both articles makes sense to me, because there is no other place on Wikipedia to see the whole history of Doctor Who TV episodes at a glance. But since the list has been split, I think each list article needs to be able to stand on its own. Letting each have a relevant lead serves that purpose better. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggested intro for (1963–1989) list
Doctor Who is a British science fiction television programme produced by the BBC. This includes one television movie and multiple specials, and encompasses stories over 36 seasons. Additionally, four charity specials and two animated serials have also been aired. The programme's high episode count has resulted in Doctor Who holding the world record for the highest number of episodes of a science-fiction programme.

Doctor Who ceased production in 1989, then resumed in 2005. The original series (1963–1989), generally consists of multi-episode serials; in the early seasons, and occasionally through its run, serials tend to link together, one story leading directly into the next. The 2005 revival trades the earlier serial format for a run of self-contained episodes, interspersed with occasional multi-part stories and structured into loose story arcs.

For the first two seasons of Doctor Who and most of the third (1963–1966), each episode carries its own title; the show displays no titles for overarching serials until The Savages, at which point the episodic titles cease. The below titles for these early serials are those in most common circulation, used for commercial releases and in resources such as the Doctor Who Reference Guide and the BBC's classic episode guide. With the show's revival in 2005, the programme returned to individual episode titles.

Due to the BBC's 1970s junking policy, 97 episodes of Doctor Who from the 1960s are no longer known to exist. As a result, 26 serials are currently incomplete, with one or more episodes represented only by audio and, in many cases, clips or still frames. For commercial release, some episodes have been reconstructed using off-air audio recordings, paired to surviving visuals or newly commissioned animation.

The story numbers below are not official designations; they are meant as a rough guide to placement in the overall context of the programme. There is some dispute, for instance, about whether to count Season 23's The Trial of a Time Lord as one or as four serials, and whether the unfinished serial Shada should be included. The numbering scheme in this list reflects an internal practice of describing "Planet of the Dead" (2009) as the 200th story. Other sources, such as the Region 1 classic Doctor Who DVD releases, use different numbering schemes, which diverge after the 108th story, The Horns of Nimon (1979–1980).

Suggested intro for (2005–present) list
Doctor Who is a British science fiction television programme produced by the BBC. This includes one television movie and multiple specials, and encompasses stories over 36 seasons. Additionally, four charity specials and two animated serials have also been aired. The programme's high episode count has resulted in Doctor Who holding the world record for the highest number of episodes of a science-fiction programme. In June 2017, it was announced that due to the terms of a deal between BBC Worldwide and SMG Pictures in China, the company has first right of refusal on the purchase for the Chinese market of future series of the programme until and including Series 15.

Doctor Who ceased production in 1989, then resumed in 2005. The original series (1963–1989), generally consists of multi-episode serials. The 2005 revival trades the earlier serial format for a run of self-contained episodes, interspersed with occasional multi-part stories and structured into loose story arcs.

The story numbers below are not official designations; they are meant as a rough guide to placement in the overall context of the programme. There is some dispute, for instance, about whether to count Season 23's The Trial of a Time Lord as one or as four serials, and whether the unfinished serial Shada should be included. The numbering scheme in this list reflects an internal practice of describing "Planet of the Dead" (2009) as the 200th story. Other sources, such as the Region 1 classic Doctor Who DVD releases, use different numbering schemes, which diverge after the 108th story, The Horns of Nimon (1979–1980).

Split
This tendency to want to shorten or split articles is quite inexplicable to me. Both for the Doctor Who story list, and for other articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_universe_creatures_and_aliens, which is split into three quite short articles. To whom are these splits an advantage precisely? Concerning the present all-story list, where exactly is the much-vaunted consensus? Meerta (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

1963-96
Why don't we renamed the page "List of Doctor Who episodes (1963-96). As it's kind of misleading as the movie is on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.146.201 (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Why reject technical evolution hints ?
The transition to colour is mentioned in good place in season 7 summary.

It seems to me transition from 405 to 625 lines is on a par and also makes a difference in the way the episodes are perceived by the viewer, and therefore deserve a short hint So what is the criterium to reject it ?

Similarly, Dr Who was most of the time shot using television technology, and PAL was an important evolution of that, so it seemed worth to signal the first episode to use it, and make the distinction with "Spearhead from space", which just relies on film.

This also helps to emphasize the long story of the serie, as it has allowed it to see several technological evolutions.

Yes, the information is available from the individual episodes description if you use the links, but most likely you won't be aware of it it unless you already know what to look for.

For me it is has a significant impact on the history, and is not to be neglected in comparison to cast changes. Furthermore, it can be stated in a concise manner in the summaries.

And last point, there are really only those two to mention : 625 lines and color for classic episodes. For further evolution to 625 lines digital and HD, you have to wait for the 2005 and onwards period. So this would not add significant volume to the page.

Finally, a link to the Dr Who restoration team web page would seem to have its place here. (http://www.restoration-team.co.uk/)

Metazoaire (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Episode Table Format
I feel like rowspanning is absolutely necessary for this new format that seems to have been taken on. There's a huge amount of duplicated information, and many of the rows are impractically stretched because of this. I feel, where appropriate, the writers and directors cells need to span the right rows for a cleaner and more practical look. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * After posting this, it's just occurred to me that the tables are taken from the Season pages, where the rowspan isn't possible. Is there no way of doing it? I just feel like it looks a bit of a mess at the moment. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , see the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility and Template talk:Episode list. There was a very firm disagreement against the use of rowspans in the middle of a table, given their apparent lack of accessibility. -- / Alex /21  12:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * On the topic, for The Trial of a Time Lord: The Ultimate Foe, Holmes wrote the first episode and the Bakers the second. I'm not sure how to correct the syntax, but I thought I'd raise the problem here. -- Ted Edwards  12:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it's not able to be changed. "WrittenBy" doesn't allow parted parameters like "Aux1" or "Viewers". -- / Alex /21  12:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , and now it does. ✅ -- / Alex /21  13:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with . I wondered what on Earth had happened to this list, now listening every single episode (as opposed to story) separately. The advantage is that AI and ratings information is all on the one page. The disadvantages are that it is very hard on the eye, takes longer to scroll through, crazy duplication of information, and greater difficulty in searching for all stories that a director or writer worked on. It must be admitted too that "part one", "part two" etc. do not constitute episode titles. The old format was fine for many years, so I am at a loss as to why this was necessary. Meerta (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , what is "harder for the eye" is conforming with the introduction of accessibility as protected by Manual of Style/Accessibility. Please read the two discussions linked so that you are familiar with the requirement for the changes; if you had already done so, you would not be "at a loss". -- / Alex /21  02:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Alex. I've looked at the discussions. Unfortunately the linking by itself hasn't been as helpful as I hoped. I may have missed it, but there is no explanation in them accessible to the lay editor. I am not an expert on screen readers, and it's pretty obvious that most would not be au fait with the manners in which tables interact with these. However, in the first link it almosst looks as if you are arguing against any changes or reversions according to the access policy as understood by your fellow editors there.
 * One would have hoped in 2019 that screen readers existed able to handle tables of different kinds, or that a some kind of table could work with them for our purposes, because the repetition of information here might also be found excessive by a user of them. But perhaps such readers don't exist. From where I am sitting, and correct me if I'm wrong but please without sarcasm, it can appear that Wikipedia might not possess the operational structures or resources necessary to resolve the issue. Bluntly, this would require the input of experts, and Wiki is sustained by dedicated volunteers. Some of these may happen to be experts in this, but the discussion linked are too opaque to see if those people have been involved here. Who requested the changes and why they were made in the first place is not very clear.Meerta (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was indeed arguing against the changes, but I came to see the reasoning behind it. That's what consensus is - discussion and agreement. One might hope for that, but it's not the case. We need to lay tables out as accessible as possible. We solved the issue by removing the rowspans, that was the solution. Anything that includes rowspans in the midst of a table becomes an accessibility issue. -- / Alex /21  01:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. The one thing I don't understand is what you refer in saying "one might hope for that".Meerta (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One would have hoped in 2019 that screen readers existed able to handle tables of different kinds. One might hope for that, but it's not the case. -- / Alex /21  01:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Two lists?
Why are there two lists of episodes of one show? They should be merged! --2003:C1:4F2B:2555:D577:15D8:5D92:F386 (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Five Doctors missing from Series Overiew
Looking at the episode counts - how is The Five Doctors missing from the Series Overiew - especially when the TV Movie is included. Should be either part of the Series 20, or a separate line - but this one episode serial shouldn't be excluded. Nfitz (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Five Doctors is listed with Season 20. Having said that, the other specials (2005 Christmas special, etc.) also experience the same issue, which is that they're not included in the Series Overview episode count for each series although they're grouped together as that year's special as an addendum. DonQuixote (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In the List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989)? Where? That should stand on it's own. Hmm, yes the 21st century Christmas specials ... I didn't look that far - probably an issue (for List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)). Hmm ... also raises the question why the 1996 movie is detailed on the page for 1963 to 1989 - though perhaps I don't want to touch that Pandora's Box. Nfitz (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you click on Season 20, it'll take you to the table where it's listed as an addendum to Season 20. That's the issue with all the specials--they're listed as addenda to the tables but not counted as part of the episode count in the Series Overview. DonQuixote (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is indeed the issue. I've never seen another series that does this. Compare to other series, like List of Downton Abbey episodes, Victoria (British TV series), or List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episodes where Christmas and other specials are included in the episode count somehow, even if there is a gap. At the same time, I don't think I've ever had such a quick response to a talk page queriy - making me reluctant to offer an edit! :) Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You can bring this up at WT:WHO. DonQuixote (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Or one could be bold - I think both Victoria and Downton Abbey have nailed this ... I don't see previous discussion about this. Did I miss something? Nfitz (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can be bold. I'm not too bothered about it one way or the other. DonQuixote (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The note above the overview is quote clear. The following table dictates the season or series in question for the programme as a whole; singular specials are not included in episode counts or viewer totals. For what it's worth, the specials between the classic era (i.e. The Five Doctors) and the revived era (i.e. The Christmas Specials) are all the same issue, as there's only one series overview, it's simply transcluded from the 2005 article to the 1963 article.
 * Interestingly, it was me that made the (+1) changes to both the Downton Abbey and Victoria articles (Downton Abbey change (previous format); Victoria change, Call the Midwife too), but I would disagree with its usage in this article. In both the given examples, the Christmas specials are a clear continuation from (or into, in the case of CtM) their respective seasons, hence the inclusion of the dates/+1 episode in the series overview rows. For Doctor Who, they are typically standalone episodes; we simply include them in the tables for convenience's sake.
 * The fact is, is that there's too many specials to take count of; as far as I can tell, this is how the overview has always existed; the note was added in 2015, although there was once a separate table for the specials which was later removed. If were were to add all the specials in the episode counts and dates, in the same format as Downton Abbey, Victoria and Call the Midwife, this is what we would be looking at; fine for the classic era, but then a cramped mess for the revived era. The suggestion that I would like to put across is the removal of all specials from the overview, to make it just for the regular seasons/series, and the restoration of the specials table, as seen here. -- / Alex /21  02:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Looking at how this would work, I agree that it doesn't seem to for New Who (with it's special episodes). But it would if we were just looking at the 1983 and 1996 movie-length specials. I'd be tempted to add in the 1983 special, in the manner you Sandboxed, but create a separate (perhaps more concise) table for New Who. I'd skip the 1991 broadcast of the alternate version of Unearthly Child ... that's a slippery slope ... with the 1970s movie-versions that BBC aired of some Pertwees the two animated Tenth Doctor episodes, radio episodes, Shada broadcast, animated Power of the Daleks broadcast, etc! Nfitz (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Easy guideline would be to stick only to the episodes that are listed on this article and the 2005-present article, and the dates on which they are listed. That way, we don't have to worry about the alternate version of Unearthly Child, Shada, animated episodes, alternate airing dates, etc. There used to be a "Criteria for inclusion" section on the talk page of the Doctor Who episode list article, stating thus. "For a serial to be listed on this article page, there are two criteria, both of which must be met: Was it broadcast by the BBC?"; same applies for the overview. -- / Alex /21  21:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Article name
Wouldn't "List of Twentieth Century Doctor Who episodes" be a better name? That would cater for the TVM and would avoid the ugly "(1963–1989)" in the title. The other article could then be "List of Twenty-First Century Doctor Who Episodes". Sorry if this idea has come up before. 86.173.202.219 (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This was the agreed title in the split-discussion consensus. This title also complies further with NCTV standards, in which it is listed as "List of SHOW episodes (DISAMBIGUATOR)". The only really acceptable change would be for the disambiguator to be 1963–1996. -- / Alex /21  21:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It should say to 1996 as it features an episode from 1996 5.2.105.85 (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Episodes vs Parts
I am confused as to why in the column "Episode Titles" we have entries like "Episode 1","Episode 2", etc. Viewing the actual original TV series, no-where do they call them "episodes". In the title sequences, they are actually called "Part 1", "Part 2" etc.

Is there a reason Wikipedia calls these "episodes"? Some kind of standardisation thing with other TV series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.38.176 (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually they changed between the two over the years. I don't have it in front of me but the switch sometimes happened when the producer changed. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In seasons 3 to 10 (i.e. from The Savages to The Green Death), the word "Episode" was used; in seasons 11 to 26 (from The Time Warrior to Survival) the word "Part" was used. However, there were two exceptions: in The Ice Warriors the word "Episode" was omitted, and the caption read simply "One" etc. to "Six"; and in Destiny of the Daleks there was a reversion to "Episode" for this one story.
 * The way that the number was given also changed, but more often. Initially, in seasons 3 to 7, digits were generally used (The Savages "Episode 1" etc.) but eight stories used words ("Episode One" etc.): The Power of the Daleks, The Abominable Snowmen, The Ice Warriors and the last five stories of season 6 (The Invasion to The War Games). From season 8 (Terror of the Autons etc.) onwards, the number was always given as a word.
 * Two episodes had no episode/part caption - the third episode of The Dominators (presumably a mistake), and The Five Doctors naturally had no episode title because it was complete in one part.
 * I suspect, rather than being governed by the producer, it's the people in the captioning department - these are the ones who mistitled The Silurians as Doctor Who and the Silurians. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect, rather than being governed by the producer, it's the people in the captioning department - these are the ones who mistitled The Silurians as Doctor Who and the Silurians. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Linking inconsistencies
I've noticed some inconsistencies in the wikilinking here. For a serial with only one director for all parts (such as Waris Hussein for An Unearthly Child), they are linked on every instance. However, if a serial has multiple directors across its parts (such as Christopher Barry [1–2, 4–5] and Richard Martin [3, 6–7] for The Daleks), they are only linked on the first instance (per MOS:OL, I presume). This is because the DirectedBy template only requires one usage for shared directors, but needs to be used as DirectedBy_1, DirectedBy_2... for multiple directors. If we wish to have consistency, I see two possible solutions.

Solution 1
We include a link to the director/writer across every instance within the table. The main concern with this is that it includes overlinking, but this is permissible in tables per MOS:DL.

Solution 2
We only link to the director/writer on the first instance. The main concern with this method is that it adds a lot more markup to the tables, as it requires DirectedBy_1, DirectedBy_2... for every episode.

Discussion
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks in advance. – Rhain  ☔ 03:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Bunny Webber may have co-written "An Unearthly Child", but didn't get an on-screen credit for that. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a discussion for the season 1 talk page if there are any further disagreements. Do you have any suggestions for the discussion at hand? – Rhain  ☔ 22:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

862nd episode
Someone should make it 862 eps after The Timeless Children, unless it was added before the episode aired DoctorWhoEditor2 (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "The Timeless Children" is episode 861. -- / Alex /21  21:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Printability
Thank you very much for this truly informative list!

I do have an issue with it that may be rooted in Wikipedia software. Or in the construction of this list with Wikipedia style elements. The list does not "nicely" print. With nicely I mean you can get the entire data contained to printer output without manually resizing (scaling). Fit to page size should do that, but it doesn't. While this can be OS related, I am a bit puzzled that it does not even work for PDF output (instead of printer output). As PDF carries an outer frame, in which all elements are placed, in theory it should not occur that certain information gets outside that frame.

This is Linux Mint (Ubuntu) version 19, and I see the issue with both the printer driver for Canon MX 925 (which is a very reliable, well written driver) and with PDF export. I have to scale below 87% (!) to get the entire content of a given page into that page without overspill at the right hand side. I do not recall having this issue with other lists. At the moment, I do not have a Windows machine at hand to verify this behaviour on Windows. Thanks.... 2001:A61:BF6:7901:CCFA:28E5:82F5:5A81 (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Add'l info: Browser is up-to-date Firefox 93. Printing is done via Firefox' print function, which utilizes all installed drivers and a PDF export. Mint/Ubunto also offers a PDF printer export as a driver, so I got three options: Canon, PDF export driver, built-in Firefox PDF exports. All three show the issue...2001:A61:BF6:7901:CCFA:28E5:82F5:5A81 (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello IP. If you don't get an answer here you could ask your question at the WP:VPT. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I'll give it a try. 2001:A61:BAC:F001:9C64:F645:CAA3:9003 (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Dimensions in Time
Dimensions in Time should be added to the list of Specials as the 30th anniversary special. Foxx247 (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: It could be said that it's a charity special like Curse of the Fatal Death or the 2005 Children in Need special. DonQuixote (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

suggest merge of both dr who episode lists as they are ostensibly the same article
List_of_Doctor_Who_episodes_(2005–present) List_of_Doctor_Who_episodes_(1963–1989)

they seem to have been split in 2017 for unknown reasons but they're basically identical.

110.44.18.224 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "for unknown reasons"; the discussion is linked just above this section. They're far from identical once you scroll beyond the first section. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 23:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)