Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 10

merge sections?
Would it be simpler to merge the sections "Special (2010)" and "Comic Relief Special (2011)" into one table, like "Specials (2005)" or "Specials (2007)" (which are similar cases, as in both one of the stories is a mini episode for charity) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps later. At this point, the Comic Relief special has information that warrants it's own section, and would be confusing when merged with the Christmas special.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 15:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Trial of a Time Lord
I note that in the section for season 23, Trial of a Time Lord is given individual story titles. Surely this isn't correct? Story 7A is credited on screen as Trial of a Time Lord parts 1-4, 7B is parts 5-8, 7C is parts 9-14. I know it's become common to refer to each segment by it's working title and by the title used for the novelisations, but in terms of the official Dr Who canon and what the on screen captions dictate, there is simply one story, divided into three productions, with nothing more than episode numbers dividing them.

Would there be an outcry if I made this change? TVArchivistUK (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's clearer as it is and it's best to look at things from the point of view of a non-expert reader looking for information. The DVD releases, the BBC website and a number of other references use the working titles so that's useful information in this context and makes it an exception. There is no official Doctor Who canon so a change would just be about applying some sort of consistency for its own sake and I don't see what the reader gains from that. If you're going to be that strict, you should also move Shada out of the main list. I think it's better left as it is. Maccy69 (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've edited the intro paragraph for that section to makes things a bit clearer. Given that we need to keep the separate sections for the different writers, directors and production codes, I really don't see what is to be gained by removing the working titles. Maccy69 (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you added comments on season length for 22 & 23. When I did the same, it was immediately removed by the "owners" of this page. Good luck! TVArchivistUK (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, you didn't do the same. My version is an attempt to accommodate your edits, which I agree weren't especially constructive although I could see the rather pedantic point you were trying to make (although your edits actually made things less clear). I think that most people would have understood season 23 to be when the seasons got shorter without any further explanation - but the details are now there. Taking the attitude that this page has owners really isn't going to help. If you disagree with someone's reversion of an edit the best thing to do is discuss it here, not to make another edit which runs the risk of escalating things into an edit war. See WP:BRD for some suggestions. Maccy69 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You always know that when an editor begins "With all due respect", there will be no respect whatsoever in what they are about to write. A classic example of here of a wiki editor slamming someone trying to make edits with their usual holier than thou, pedantic, downright nasty tone. No wonder nobody is interested in developing wiki any further than the sad folks who monitor every page and treat every article as their personal property. Doubtless I'll be serving a ban now, but good luck to the folks like TVArchivist who try their best in the face of such nasty hostility. JKMMOC (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. That's confrontational. I wasn't trying to slam anyone and I apologise if the tone comes across as nasty. TVArchivistUK was trying to make a rather antagonistic point about the supposed "owners" of this page reverting his edit as some sort of conspiracy - the implication being that my attempts to include his point in a clearer manner would also be reverted by these "owners" (which hasn't happened).


 * The edits in question were quite short, so here they are. TVArchivist UK added a qualifier in brackets to the final sentence about The Trial of a Time Lord so that it read: "Episode length returned to 25 minutes, but with only fourteen episodes, making this season approximately half the length of the previous fifteen seasons (disregarding the 13 episodes of season 22 which were 45 minutes each in length)." with the edit comment "added explanation to avoid ambiguity". That addition is both pedantic and confusing and I still maintain that it was pretty clear before that 14 X 25 minutes in roughly half the length of both 13 X 45 minutes and 26 X 25 minutes. So, not surprisingly, the edit was reverted (by another editor, not me) with the comment "undo - there's no ambiguity" . Now there was possibly something to discuss here (see WP:BRD for a way that can be productive) but TVArchivistUK chose not to do that. Rather there's another edit, changing the sentence to "Episode length returned to 25 minutes, but with only fourteen episodes." with the comment "14 is more than 13 so removed disputed comment entirely"  which is a pretty confrontational way to go about things.


 * In an attempt to resolve the potential conflict that could arise from this I made three edits adding information about the serial lengths so that TVArchivistUK's point was included but with enough information to make it clear. I was trying to be helpful and it looks like TVArchivistUK approves of the additions. What I wasn't prepared to let slide was the implication that there's a bias against changes to this page and the certain editors own it. Apologies again if I was too confrontational about this but I'll repeat, the way to get your edits included is to discuss them here - making snide comments is just not productive.


 * Glancing at your talk page it looks like you've had a few run ins with other editors. I haven't looked in detail so I can't comment, but it may be worth considering whether you're spending your time usefully on what has to be a collaborative project. Coming onto discussion pages and railing against "sad folks who monitor every page and treat every article as their personal property" just strikes me as a bit of a waste of time. If you want to get involved in a productive way, I suggest you stop and think about how things have gone so far and have a read of the conduct policies, starting with WP:CIV. I don't edit very often so what you think of me in all this is irrelevant but it may be worth considering either changing your attitude to the other editors on this project or finding something less frustrating to do with your time. Edit: looking in more detail, I see that was all three years ago (I read the month but not the year) so it looks like we're past the point where any attempt at advice from me will have any value. Feel free to disregard.


 * I firmly believe that most people get involved with the best of intentions so apologies again if my comments made anyone feel bad or if I was unnecessarily stirring up conflict. Apologies also to anyone who is thoroughly bored by the this comment, I'll not be responding any further on this. Maccy69 (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Adfilmstudios, 17 March 2011
Please Change Serial 218/ 2.7 name from TBA to "Deamon's Run" Because it has been released on the docotr who wiki that that episode is called Deamon's Run

Adfilmstudios (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌, wikis are not reliable sources.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How's this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Good enough.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 18:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is good enough. It's a TV Guide blog from March 10th. The most recent Doctor Who Magazine says that Demons Run (no apostrophe) is a working title and that the broadcast title will be different (they give the two possible titles as well). Given that there has been no press release from the BBC that includes the titles, I'd say that the official magazine is the reliable source here, regardless of the date of the blog. The magazine has a direct connection to the production team, the TV Guide blog does not. Maccy69 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * When was the magazine published? Does the article have a date?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The cover date is April 11th, but the date is was in the shops was March 10th . Looking closer at tvguide.co.uk I don't think it's any kind of reliable source - it's not connected to the US TV Guide or any other publication, it's just an online TV listings site run by an internet marketing company 21:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't actually have a copy of the magazine, but the source is Steven Moffat's Production Notes column - I see nothing about that blog entry that suggest they're doing anything than reporting the working title that was in circulation (via an actor's CV) before that issue of DWM came out. Maccy69 (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I've reverted this once more and here's why. Regardless of whether DWM takes precedence over this blog, I think the point is that http://blog.tvguide.co.uk/ is not a reliable source, as I said above. We don't have to prove a negative here (ie Steven Moffat says that this isn't the title) we just have to be confident that the source given is providing verifiable information. To say what I said above in more detail: if you go to www.tvguide.co.uk you'll see that it has nothing to do with the US magazine of the same name. In fact it's not associated with any magazine at all. Look at http://www.tvguide.co.uk/aboutus.asp and it says "Over a decade ago we had a dream that everyone would search and watch TV online, so we registered the domain name TVGuide.co.uk. Ten years later this vision has become a reality and TVGuide.co.uk has flourished as the UK's favourite Interactive Programming Guide. TVguide.co.uk site is run and managed by Imano the ecommerce and online marketing agency." I seriously doubt that meets WP:RS and I'll be making a post at WP:RSN to confirm this. I know it's getting close to edit warring to revert this again, but I think until we have consensus, it's better to leave the title as "TBA" especially considering that no official announcement has been made. Maccy69 (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I agree with Maccy69. Just to add further to the confusion, @MonasticProds on Twitter (i.e. Matthew Graham) tweeted "Steven Moff has just suggested a new title for my Ep 6. I really like it. Has an old school DW feel to it." back on the 9th March, so that episode may not be called "Gangers" after all. I think it is difficult to have reliable information about episode titles until broadcast, actually! So that means we should treat all secondary sources (including blogs etc.) as unreliable and be clear that information from usually reliable sources (e.g. DWM) may not be final. Stephenb (Talk) 08:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. In the past, titles have changed at the last minute ("Forest of the Dead" was going to be "River's Run"). Anyway, I've posted this: Reliable sources/Noticeboard so we should get some outside opinions on this. I'll leave it to the rest of you to decide how best to proceed. For what it's worth, we'll get titles for the first five episodes in the next issue of DWM: http://twitter.com/#!/DWMtweets/status/47364689461657600 That will at least have come directly from the BBC, although it'll only be the state of things on the day they went to press. Maccy69 (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we're a bit too hung on truth versus verifiability. Wether the site is related to the US TV Guide is not relevant. I have no reason to doubt the good faith of the tvguide blog; it is the closest thing we have for a source. Even if it is a marketing company, it is not like The Sun or some personal blog, and as a TV related publication, they may have access to information that others don't. The titles may be subject to change, but that is not a reason for us not to report them; we can always update. This is a wiki after all.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 11:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No - "Demon's Run" is neither necessarily true nor verifiable. At the moment, it can only be listed as a working title (per the DWM source) as that is the only reliable source. It cannot be listed as the true title.  The blog is not the "closest thing we have to a source" - "closest" speaks volumes there!! - it is just not a reliable source; we can't just assume they have "access to information that others don't". As for "not reporting them", Wikipedia is not a news site, it is an encyclopaedia of verifiable information.  Stephenb (Talk) 12:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A source is a source. Unless the source is proven to be unreliable, there should be no reason to not include it. The truth is not the determining factor here. So why again should tvguide.co.uk not be regarded a valid source?  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 12:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To me saying a source is reliable unless it's proven not to be doesn't make any sense - but if you could point me to the policy that says this I'd be happy to concede that point. This is what I've been able to find:


 * "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."


 * (from WP:SOURCES). That blog has no editor, no named blog authors and no obvious way to contact the editorial team (if there is one), that doesn't suggest a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Neither does their posting an entry that contradicts an article written by the man who runs the show. Furthermore they don't name their sources and their statement isn't found anywhere else. I'd say that suggests they're unreliable unless evidence can be found as to their reliability. Maccy69 (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's less reliable than The Sun - The Sun is a newspaper, this is just a commercial website with no journalistic history at all. At the moment you seem to be suggesting that this should be asserted as the a verifiable source for the title of the episode even though no official announcement of the title has been made and there's nothing in the source that would help a reader verify where they got their information from or how reliable it is. There isn't even a named author of the piece or an editor or an editorial contact. On top of that, we have an article in the DWM that came out on March 10th from Steven Moffat, the showrunner and the author of the episode concerned, saying that "Demons Run" is a working title and the broadcast title with either be "A Good Man Goes to War" or "His Darkest Hour". So, simply on the basis of this one source, the effect of the article is to say that he's changed his mind since then. I don't see that there is any way of verifying this from the sources we have, so it's best left as "TBA" (which is accurate anyway, because the title hasn't been announced, it's only been reported). I'm concerned also that we're straying into WP:CRYSTAL with all of this. The titles will get officially announced at some point, I don't see the value in putting titles up at this point without being certain that the information comes from the BBC. By the way, if you do want to value this source, you should also put April 23rd as a UK date for episode one, since they also make that claim. Maccy69 (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "A source is a source"?  ("The quest is the quest!" :) )  Well, no - we have to exercise some judgement on sources, and as Maccy69 says, the web source lacks any indication of its own sources or journalistic responsibility.  Just as we don't know how they got their information, which you (Edokter) don't seem worried about, we don't know when, so we can't say whether it supersedes DWM's information.  "Demon's Run" still appears to be a discarded working title according to the most reliable source we have. Stephenb (Talk) 16:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Edokter - a source is not a source - you should know this as an admin. When you have the person in charge stating that the title is not Demons Run, I think that's more than enough to say that "the source" is not reliable. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Air Dates for All Episodes of Season 6
IMDB's page on Doctor Who, Season 6 has the following listed as air dates for the episodes, and includes 6.7's title. Hiigarantechnician (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 6.1 - April 23, 2011 (Now confirmed here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12958169)
 * 6.2 - April 24, 2011
 * 6.3 - April 30, 2011
 * 6.4 - May 7, 2011
 * 6.5 - May 14, 2011 - The Rebel Flesh
 * 6.6 - May 21, 2011 - The Gangers
 * 6.7 - May 28, 2011 - Demon's Run
 * 6.8 - September 3, 2011
 * 6.9 - September 10, 2011
 * 6.10 - September 17, 2011
 * 6.11 - September 24, 2011
 * 6.12 - October 1, 2011
 * 6.13 - October 8, 2011


 * IMDB is not a reliable source for this kind of information. Anyone could have added that. Stephenb (Talk) 09:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Anybody did. It was me, on the basis that it's a reasonable guess and more accurate than what they had before (a series start in March). But even if I was some sort of insider there's no way of verifying that from IMDb so it doesn't meet WP:V or WP:RS. Also Demons Run has been confirmed as a working title by DWM, the final broadcast title is not decided yet. Maccy69 (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As it happens, the latest DWM confirms that it is not "Demon's Run" - it gives two titles for episdoe 7, saying only that it is one or the other. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * and I've just realised that I misread that above post. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So there you go folks, IMDb just contains worthless guesses. Stephenb (Talk) 11:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Moffat has confirmed episode 7 is called "A Good Man Goes to War". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.207.70 (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However before anything can be in an article we need a reliable source. Can you tell us how you know? Edgepedia (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

TBC Dates of series 6
On 6 April, I added the transmission dates of episodes 2 through to 7 of Series Six based on the dates printed in the latest (433) issue of Doctor Who Magazine. Episodes four to seven came with the disclaimer that they were not yet confirmed by the BBC, but they were announced in the magazine. Today, Edgepedia removed the dates of episodes five, six and seven; in the edit summary he/she said that "not supported by cited reference". Edgepedia however left in the date for episode four, similarly announced yet unconfirmed, which remains in the current article with a "(tbc)" alongside it. It is highly likely that these will be the dates of transmission for these episodes; the editor of Doctor Who Magazine obviously thought it likely enough to include them [if with the "(tbc)"], so should the dates be readded or should we wait for the BBC to officially announce these dates? Thelb 4 17:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at the the magazine today, and I recall that the 14 May date had (tbc) and the subsequent episodes had no date. However, I don't have the magazine to hand and I'm willing to admit I may be wrong. Edgepedia (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wrong and I've self-reverted.
 * However, are we happy with the synthesis of a DWM editor, or would it be better only to put confirmed dates in the tables, and let the reader form their own opinion?Edgepedia (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Production Order
Curious as to why Series 4 (2008) has some of its production order highlighted via 4.x notes when the same isn't done for 1 through 3 or 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallicus (talk • contribs) 05:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is because the production codes for series 1, 2, 3 and 5 didn't have their episode order changed during production.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 10:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the purpose of listing the production codes is to illustrate the order in which the episodes were made (and I can't see a reason to do so other than that), that argument makes little sense in my opinion.Gallicus (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The production codes are assigned to each episode by the producers; we don't make them up here. They are initially in broadcast order, but they get sometimes swapped around. It has nothing to do with the order of production; a series is shot in the most efficient order in several production blocks.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 22:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dates that are "TBC"
Should wikipedia really have dated that are "TBC" - if it's not confirmed, then why have it? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Specials
The Christmas Specials were previously listed under separate headings to the main series for 2005 onwards, now they are listed under the individual series they precede, why? They are promoted separately, released separately, and broadcast separately, even if the production code matches the following series should it be defined under that heading? The Five Doctors is listed individually, why are the Christmas Specials not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.166.111 (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is due to a recent edit by one editor that drastically restructured the new series sections. I have reverted these changes so we can discuss this here to come to a consensus Etron81 (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing it back Etron81. I have a vague memory that we went through this back sometime after the new series started. IMO it is proper to leave the specials as separate sections. Some confusion comes in because the first three Christmas specials were included in the complete season DVD releases for seasons two, three and four but that should not affect the way that this page is laid out. MarnetteD | Talk 21:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. In fact I don't like the Christmas specials being in the series navboxes either, but hey ho. U-Mos (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Unmade serials
The article says 'Some are unmade: they were proposed for a variety of reasons, some even reaching post-production, but not broadcast'. None reached post-production, surely? Shada was in production when cancelled, not post-production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyringo99 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't these be incomplete or unreleased rather than unmade??-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Season vs. Series
Why does the wording change? I was aware the British say series where North Americans say season, but why isn't it consistent? 99.226.210.113 (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote Archive 6 of this talk page "Most sites, such as BBC's Classic Episode Guide, OG, and A Brief History, use the term "season" for the classic series". There's a longer discussion here Edgepedia (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ultimate Foe code incorrect
The Ultimate Foe needs to be updated to 7C-2 and not 7C. Terror of the Vervoids should be changed to 7C-1. This is according to tardis.wikia.com and www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivorydrops (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was about to revert the recent changes to this effect but then I noticed that the BBC's episode guide lists Vervoids as "7C" and Ultimate Foe as "7C2" so maybe Vervoids should be 7C and Foe shoudl be 7C2? Etron81 (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with the BBC guide is that is has been written by people who weren't involved at the time. If you've got good sourcing that it is 7C and 7C-2 please feel free to change my edits and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a definitive source for 7C but if we think about it a bit then we should definitely be looking for a strong source for 7C2. If the BBC had given those final two parts a separate code then convention would have made it 7D, not 7C2. Shannon Sullivan's account of production ( and ) says that this was conceived and produced as a six-part story but that Robert Holmes only agreed to write the final two parts, since he wasn't a fan of six part stories. We don't know how well he's followed them, but Sullivan's sources would pass WP:RS (Howe/Stammers/Walker guidebooks; Pixley in a DWM Special; and In-Vision magazine). There's also plenty of detail to show how the final two segments were made in a single production block, with the same director, as if they were a single six-part story. Sullivan also lists the production code for both as 7C. In the face of all that, I think we'd need something stronger than an entry on the BBC episode guide to change the listing to 7C2 - and tardis.wikia.com should be doing the same. Also, the BBC site doesn't list "Terror of the Vervoids" as 7C-1, just as 7C and its code for "The Ultimate Foe" is 7C2, not 7C-2 - so there's no source at all for the originally requested changes. Maccy69 (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to revert this since I can't find a single source, outside of here and tardis.wikia.com for 7C-1 and 7C-2. The BBC site does say 7C and 7C2 but that goes against convention. As well as the Shannon Sullivan site, here are some more listing both as 7C:, and . Given the lack of evidence for 7C-1 and 7C-2 I think we should be looking for sources for the exception to the normal production codes rather than making the change and assuming it must be correct if 7C doesn't have a "strong source". The evidence for 7C is great deal stronger than the evidence for 7C-1 and 7C-2. Maccy69 (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tracked down the DWM source for 7C and I've added it to all the relevant articles. Maccy69 (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No argument. I went through several references I have and believe that 7C is what should exist for both (regardless of how odd it looks). David J Howe's guide (Volume 1, and future versions) all show 7C. I personally find his definitive. I apologize for the run-around. Ivorydrops (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mrcook9, 10 May 2011
In the adventure games section, you have missed one; The Mazes of Time.

Mrcook9 (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Mazes of Time isn't one of the Adventure Games (announced as extra episodes, which is why they get a listing here) it's just an iPhone App game. See Doctor Who: The Mazes of Time. Maccy69 (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Doctor's Wife wrong date
It appears the BBC channel has decided to release the episode a bit earlier, therefore the date is not may 14th, it's may 11th. link to correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabum555 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * May 11th is the date of that bulletin, not the broadcast, which is on the 14th. The bulletin even says the 14th, if you read it. Given that the 11th was three days ago I'm amazed that anyone could misread a website so badly. Anyway, the date is correct. Maccy69 (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The length is wrong. The Doctor's wife has only 45 minutes, the curse of the black takes 50 minutes. 83.170.103.213 (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We only had the schedule to go by, which had it in a 50 minute slot. As it happens it ran at 45:51 so I've updated the table. "The Curse of the Black Spot" ran at 44:50, not 50 minutes. We've had no significantly over length episodes so far. Maccy69 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just reverted an edit that changed the length back to 50 minutes. Plenty of episodes that we have listed as normal 45 minute episodes have run slightly longer (in series five, "Cold Blood" ran to 46 minutes and "Vincent and the Doctor" to 47 minutes) just as episodes normally run a bit shorter. The convention is not to put a different time unless the difference is significant (ie to round to the nearest 5 minutes). That's why I reverted. Maccy69 (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

info to the sixth series
I noticed there were some information missing in the sixth series section (episode titles etc). Here is a link to a British scifi magazine with correct and updated information about series six. http://www.sfx.co.uk/2011/05/19/the-doctor-who-series-six-new-accumulator-page/ 81.225.38.141 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. DonQuixote (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link, but the only thing that that article includes that doesn't appear here is an unconfirmed title for episode nine ("What Are Little Boys Made Of?"). And because its unconfirmed, we can't include it. The more detailed information doesn't belong in this list - it'll be for individual articles as they are created (usually just before transmission). Maccy69 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Guinness Record Has Fallen
The Guiness record for "continuous" sci-fi series has fallen. Smallville aired 217 eps. compared to SG-1's 214. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.127.9 (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2011


 * Which would be interesting if you provided a reliable source.Ratemonth (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Smallville, Smallville (season 10) and Stargate SG-1 are all sourcing Gateworld. However, I don't think this meets WP:RS since it's a fan site and they're speculating, not reporting anything that Guinness World Records have said. I'm going to make a post at WP:RSN since that way the discussion can be in one place. Maccy69 (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A "Guinness Record" is what Guinness says it is. Not what a bunch of fans think it should be. If you just state it as a "world record" you might be able to substantiate it if you can find some RS. But it's synthesis to just tally up the numbers yourself . And  Smallville isn't SF anyway. It's basically fantasy. Not that anyone else is likely to care about that. Barsoomian (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely and that's the basis of my argument here: Reliable sources/Noticeboard Maccy69 (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Calboyxz, 27 May 2011
Please would i be able to edit this page.

Calboyxz (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please specify what it is exactly that you would like to be changed.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 13:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.147.22.91, 2 June 2011
The episode title for episode eight is Let's Kill Hitler Source: http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-series-6-episode-8-title-21253.htm

86.147.22.91 (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That source isn't reliable- the BBC hasn't confirmed that is the title. Ratemonth (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌. Unreliable source. Only the BBC is regarded a valid source in this regard.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 12:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

14 new episodes
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall a Christmas 2011 episode being announced before today? So, contrary to what most of the internet seems to think, that would mean (assuming the now-standard series arrangement is adhered to) we have got this year's Christmas episode and a further 13 eps starring Matt confirmed? ie. If and when there are more details for the xmas ep, we should then say that 13 further eps have been commissioned, not 14. U-Mos (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, shouldn't it be noted that some of the confirmed episodes will air next year, with the rest airing in 2013? 86.147.122.56 (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't yet seem to have gone beyond twitter and fansites. When it does it can be cited. U-Mos (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Series
Who is the person trying to turn the world into America? Surely as this is a British series, it should be described as such and not the Amerivan equivalent. I would change all the relevant places, but the thing is locked for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.168.173 (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The classic series was broadcast in seasons, ie. in general 25+ episodes per year. U-Mos (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the many discussion about this is here Archive 6 of this talk page. If you read the various guide books for the show you will find that virtually all of them use the term season for the Classic series and their is a longstanding consensus to use the term in this article as well. MarnetteD | Talk 20:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a two-parter
Re season 6... "Let's Kill Hitler" is not the second half of a two-parter. A Good Man Goes to War is clearly a standalone; the next episode will be too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.239.107 (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not according to the source (though this may have to be looked at again closer to broadcast, when more sources will come to light). U-Mos (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC, didn't Doctor Who Magazine confirm that Episodes Seven and Eight were a two-parter in April's issue? 86.147.122.56 (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A question for you UK editors. "The Almost People" ended with the big swooping in of the "To Be Continued" words. Did this occur in the UK? The "Good Man..." episode also ended with the "TBC" logo. If this was the same on the BBC airings does that not indicate that this is a loose three-parter a la "Utopia", "The Sound of Drums" and "The Last of the Time Lords". Anyway, I agree that we need sourcing for any of this and time will tell but I am curious if they were presented differently here in the US. Thanks ahead of time for you input. MarnetteD | Talk 23:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a three-parter. If anything it continues the storyline from the first two episodes of the series (which didn't have much of a point as a two-parter anyway - what exactly was the problem with the Silence? Other than killing that lady and scaring a little girl, obviously - minor offences in the grand scheme of Doctor Who...). Now, has anyone got the EXACT TEXT of this citation? I can't see how an episode called "Let's Kill Hitler" is going to be any less independent of "A Good Man Goes To War" than that episode was of the Flesh two-parter. And the fact that they're being filmed in completely different production blocks lends credence to my suspicions. MultipleTom (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.57.178.119, 21 June 2011
Season 17 after episode 108 The Horns of Nimon, is the episode Shada. You don't have an air date for that show, or a episode number. The show did have an airing date in England and I got it directly from the Doctor Who website on the BBC. Here is the address to the exact page for you to check it out. http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/shada/detail.shtml

As for the an episode number or story number, it should be #109. My reasoning is, it was the 109th story of the Doctor Who series. Here is the address for the stories of Tom Baker. http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/index_fourth.shtml

It shows Shada as the last story of the 17th season. I hope this is enough proof to have those changes implemented.

Thank you

75.57.178.119 (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The dates on the BBC guide refer to the webcast of the 8th Doctor version of Shada which is listed under "Other stories" on this list. As for the story numbering, it  follows the current production team's numbering that numbers "PLanet of the Dead" as the 200th story (and excludes Shada and counts Trial as 1 story)Etron81 (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 27 June 2011
At the beginning, it says “The show's high episode count resulted in Doctor Who holding the world record for the highest number of episodes for a science-fiction programme.[1] For comparison, the Guinness World Record holder for the highest number of consecutive episodes, Stargate SG-1,[1] aired 214 episodes.”

Smallville ended its run with 218 episodes and is the current record holder.


 * We have already been through this via edit summaries. The Smallville info may be the case but we a sourcing the Guinness Book of Records and until they make the change we should not. On the other hand if you can provide an alternate source about the record then the change might be made if consensus agrees with it. MarnetteD | Talk 21:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: per above comments. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What does "consecutive episodes" mean? I mean from 1963-1989 Doctor Who did 695 episodes without any cancellations, so is there some reason that isn't counted? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC) They are when the show streams episodes onto television (usually weekly) and without stop. Example of a stop would be the time now that we are waiting for the second part of Doctor Who series 6 to come out (May-September). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.160.247 (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's for Guinness to decide, not us. The record holder should be Doctor Who, but... Sceptre (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The two theatrical movies
The two films should be listed for completeness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.47.176.191 (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not part of the TV series.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 18:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Shada
Why is Shada on this list? There are plenty of other Doctor Who stories that were never finished so what makes this story so special. We should either have all of the unfinished serials here or none of them. 58.168.49.248 (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's on other lists such as The Television Companion, The Programme Guide and The Discontinuity Guide. DonQuixote (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So why is it on those lists? How is it any different to all the other unfinished serials? 203.45.112.118 (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the only unfinished serial that actually had footage shot for it (all location filming and the first studio block were completed before the strike) and it has had its exisiting footage released on home video. Etron81 (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If it were a single source saying it, then you would have a valid point and the inclusion of Shada would be debatable. However, since there are multiple sources, all we can do as Wikipedia is report what the sources are saying in order to avoid original research. DonQuixote (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I was just trying to understand what made it unique (which I now do being the only one to have filming done, thanks), not actually debating it's inclusion here (or on other lists).203.45.112.118 (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * How exactly does adding verifiable information about Shada make this page less useful? So long as it is specified to the reader that only part of it was filmed (and perhaps that it was also done in animation) how is the reader misled or poorly served?  Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia, not the wetdream of an obsessive compulsive control freak. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read about etiquette and civility. I'm sure there's no harm done this time, but taking that kind of tone really won't be that helpful in most cases. What's really silly is that you've been confrontational with someone without even reading (or understanding what they're saying). There is no disagreement from the person you've replied to (203.45.112.118). If you wanted to reply to the OP (58.168.49.248) then you should have indented your reply to make that clear - although I still think you'd have been being unnecessarily inflammatory over an issue that's clearly been explained and settled. Anyway, probably no harm no done, but I'm closing this discussion off to be sure it's not going to escalate into a row - and because the issue has been dealt with. Maccy69 (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Forgotten Aventure Game
For the iPod and iPhone, it is called Mazes of Time. Also, you guys should include stories with unfinished plots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.160.247 (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not an Adventure Game, it's just a game based on the series (of which there are many - and that list doesn't include all the ones on the BBC website). The Adventure Games are listed because they have narrative elements are were described by the BBC as "interactive episodes". That doesn't apply to any other games. As for unmade episodes, they have their own article, which has all sorts of WP:RS and WP:OR issues that we don't need over here. However, if you can find reliable third-party sources that include unmade serials in the list then please list them here. As far as I'm aware, the list here follows the listing criteria of all the published lists and the one on the BBC website. Maccy69 (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Series 7
According to this site (in French) Moffat says that there will be the same number of episodes next year, just the method of transmission/delivery ("diffusion") is changing and he will explain later. There is an interview linked, but he doesn't say that. Anyone confirm what look like a blog? Edgepedia (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Season"...?
AFAIK, convention in the UK business still "series 1", "series 2" etc, not "season". As this article is about a UK production, surely UK convention trumps US...? Prof Wrong (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote Archive 6 of this talk page "Most sites, such as BBC's Classic Episode Guide, OG, and A Brief History, use the term "season" for the classic series". There's a longer discussion here Edgepedia (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Final titles
I've just reverted, twice, an edit adding final episode titles coming from the fansite Doctor Who UK, via a website called Daily Star. Even a cursory reading of the source and a previously linked page coming from the Daily Star makes clear this is a rumor site, with no reliable source for its information. Consequently, there's no reason to believe the titles are accurate, thus the revert. I suspect the editor adding them is new, and persistent, and will continue to restore them until it's made clear this is not a reliable source for the titles. Drmargi (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who Series 6, Episode 8 - Let's Kill Hitler
On Saturday, 27th of August 2011 - BBC1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.45.79 (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Series 6 pt 2, not actually airing in autumn
At least in the US. Most of the 2nd half is actually airing when it's still summer, autumn doesn't begin until the series is nearly done.16:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.193.192 (talk)
 * Seasons are not slaves to western calendars equinoxes and solstices. It is perfectly resaonable to use the term fall when referring to when these episodes will air. MarnetteD | Talk 17:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Record holder
At the top of the page Doctor Who is compared to Stargate SG-1 which is credited as the record holder for most consecutive episodes at 214. Despite the obvious flaw in this as this show hit 694 consecutive episodes before the original series was cancelled I wish to point out that Smallville too has broken this record with 218 as can be seen here. I'd make the edit myself but the page is semi-protected. 203.45.112.118 (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This was discussed in May, the discussion can be found in the archive Talk:List_of_Doctor_Who_serials/Archive_10. We're waiting for confirmation from Guinness World Records. Edgepedia (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wedding of River Song - Episode title
In the list of Doctor Who serials, please change the title of Series 6 - Episode No. 223 to "The Wedding of River Song"

This has been confirmed to be correct. A TBA title is no longer needed. Thank you.

109.152.47.63 (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please provide a reliable source. Where has this been confirmed? Edgepedia (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.164.176.238, 27 August 2011
86.164.176.238 (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please let us know what you will to change, together with the sources of your information. Edgepedia (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed...
- Some are unmade: they were proposed for a variety of reasons, some even reaching post-production, but not broadcast. -

I'd seriously like to see a citation on this statement. Many serials were brought up to the production stage, but never produced. I've never ever heard of an episode/story that made it to post-production and not aired.

This may be in reference to "Shada" but "Shada" was cancelled in mid-production and never completed. Post-production means that principle photography had been completed and the footage had entered the editing/SFX stage. "Shada" does not qualify as principle photography had never finished.

This paragraph needs citation or should be edited to reflect the inaccuracy of the statement. Antiwesley (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Spring in the northern/southern hemispheres
Series 6 (2011) said 'the first seven episodes airing in the spring and the final six to follow in the autumn'. Unfortunately, spring time in the southern hemisphere is not the same time of the year as it is in the northern hemisphere (as another editor said, 'seasons are ambiguous'). So I changed it to 'the first seven episodes airing April to June and the final six to follow from late August onwards'. Apparently this is contentious for reasons that escape me. The dates I gave came from the table below it, so I didn't add any original research. The language is clear and simple and removes a point of confusion for readers in the southern hemisphere. Dr Who is enormously popular in Australia - arguably, second only to Britain in the number of viewers. To alienate such a large population seem counterproductive to me - especially when the answer is so simple.  Stepho  talk 23:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I reworded it and cut the references; since the episodes have already aired, don't need to cite press releases from last year for the dates. BBC is always vague about dates in advance anyway. Barsoomian (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's very civil of you. Thank you very much.  Stepho  talk 11:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Episodes that made it to post-production that did not air?

 * Edit request from Antiwesley, 14 September 2011

Additionally, some other subsets of serials and episodes exist. Some are unmade: they were proposed for a variety of reasons, some even reaching post-production, but not broadcast.

Having read through the list mentioned, this statement is in error. All episodes that had entered post-production have been aired. The only episode that could be considered close to this is the 4th Doctor episode "Shada" which had never completed principle photography, thus had never entered post-production.

This sentence, to read correctly should state:

"Additionally, some subsets of serials and episodes exist. Some are unmade: many stories had been proposed, but they were cancelled in pre-production for a variety of reasons."

Again, there has been no story or episode made or in post-production that did not air.

Antiwesley (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Antiwesley,
 * Welcome to wikipedia. I haven't made any change, as I would like this to be discussed first. You are asking for a source for the statement that episodes reached post production were shown, so I've 'tagged' the statement with a fact tag (so that it says [citation needed]. There may be a reason it's there, or we may decide that it shouldn't be there. Edgepedia (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't believe there are any un-aired serials that completed filming and entered post-production, and none are mentioned at List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films. As (I believe) Shada is the only one to have started filming before being shelved, it's an odd way of putting things and is in fact unnecessary given that the unmade serials are not listed on this page. What is "subsets of serials and episodes" meant to mean? I'd be in favour of just deleting the sentence, the prose reads fine without it. U-Mos (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why 218 for two eps?
Story number 218 is given for both "A Good Man Goes to War" and "Let's Kill Hitler". Is there any logic, and ideally a citation, to support this numbering? Barsoomian (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The citation is given in the table in the "2 episodes" column as . I don't have a copy of the magazine and can't quote the text. Edgepedia (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, we just take it on faith then? I haven't seen Hitler, obviously, but from what I've heard it seems a stretch to conflate that with Good Man. You could put the whole Moffat era under one "story" if a continuous arc was the criterion. Barsoomian (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My view is it won't be long before a source contradicts the previous two-parter assertion. Until that happens, we have to follow what we've got and call it a two-parter. Having said that, I would be very interested to know the exact quote from DWM so we can confirm its validity. Anyone? U-Mos (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that the episode has premiered and it doesn't have much ties to "A Good Man Goes To War" is it safe to call them two separate stories? Nathan Ford&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not unless you find a source that says that they're two separate stories. Besides, Melody was kidnapped in the first episode and was found in the second. The second episode had very little to do with Hitler. DonQuixote (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're saying that you need a source to show that two episodes, set on two different planets 5,000 years apart, are different stories? Surely the onus should be the reverse.  What we really need is a source that both episodes are "218". One that can be verified. With the screwy way that the BBC numbers stories I can believe it may in fact be so; nevertheless, where is the citation, as I asked 3 weeks ago? Barsoomian (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Er...no. I'm saying that you need a source that contradicts the source we already have. And your argument is invalid. See The Ark (Doctor Who)...which spanned 700 years and two different planets hundreds of light years apart. Finally, your question about the citation was answered three weeks ago (see above). DonQuixote (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "source we already have" is apparently a print magazine that I for one have no access to. Do you? Have you seen it? How do we verify that? In the new series, by default all episodes are separate stories, unlike the old series. However, Moffatt might consider it the same story for his own reasons. I have no idea, and have seen nothing definitive yet. Barsoomian (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "The new season is now beginning to take shape, with Steven Moffat's opening two-parter follwed by Episode 3 by Neil Gaiman, Episode 4 by mark Gatiss, and Episodes 5 and 6 by Matthew Graham. Episode 7 will be the first half of another two-parter by Steven Moffat, which will conclude in the autumn."
 * DonQuixote (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks. Would have been nice if that was put in the article ref a month ago, but better late than never. I think the idea of calling it a "two parter" is more to create anticipation than any real unity though. But we have to go along with it.Barsoomian (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a quote to the reference. Edgepedia (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's hardly authoritative. For all we know they've based that on their own interpretation of Moffat's talk of a Cliffhanger, combined with him writing both episodes back-to-back (which normally indicates a two part story, but in this case doesn't). I think it's barking mad to call this a two-parter - episode 6 is more connected to episode 7 than episode 8 is. If you're going to call it a single story then 6.1, 6.2 and 6.13 are intrinsic parts of the same story. And there was a big three month gap between episodes. With completely different guest cast and settings. So I'm inclined to call it two separate stories. MultipleTom (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that I asked this in an earlier thread that has been archived. Did the UK airing of "A Good Man..." have the "To be continued" phrase at the end of it? Since the shows revival this has usually indicated a two parter. While it is probably better to have a source like the one that DQ used from DWM the inclusion of the phrase should send us out to look for those. MarnetteD | Talk 16:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The UK airing ended with the caption "The Doctor will be back in Let's Kill Hitler" before the credits.  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not exactly true. They've used "To be continued...." occasionally for dramatic effect for hugely publicised two-parters.  Other than that, it's usually "Next Time....".  It's a shame that they didn't keep those for series 5 blu-ray as I can't remember those off-hand. DonQuixote (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses. I forgot to mention that it was BBC America's airing that had the TBC phrase, though you probably figured that out. Thanks again and enjoy tonight's episode. MarnetteD | Talk 18:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

DVD Numbering
I realize that this list is using the "semi-official" numbering created in order to sell "Planet of the Dead" as story number 200, but since the NA DVD releases still show numbering that is at odds with this method, is there any objection to adding the DVD numbering in parenthesis to avoid confusion for those who follow that numbering? Rhindle The Red (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If no one objects, I'll start adding them in a few days. I was reminded of why this is important today when this report  came in, showing that Warner Bros. continues to use the same numbering, calling The Caves of Androzani "Story #136", though it is listed here as #135.  I will add a note at the beginning indicating that starting with "Shada", the NA DVD numbering will be in parenthesis. It will only carry through the DVDs that use the system (which I believe runs through the TV Movie) and not the revival series, as Warner doesn't use it for those. Rhindle The Red (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that no one has replied to your post before now. I want to suggest that you either post this question at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who page or post a link there back to this thread. A couple of things to be aware of. First, this article is only about the serials and has nothing to do with the DVD numbering system. Next, the discrepancy in the numbering between the serials and the DVDs is mentioned in the lede. We have had a few conversations about this in the past and if you dig into the archives you will find them (sorry I am about to log off and don't have time to find them for you) they have usually decided to not add the DVD numbers to this article. Next, since this is an article about a UK subject its information takes precedence. I apologise if you feel that I am throwing cold water on your idea. I just don't want you to get started - put in any amount have time - and then have it all reverted. MarnetteD | Talk 01:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And current British practice regards "Planet of the Dead" as #200, regardless of past practice in America. Both timescale and origin take precedence. Sceptre (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and repost it as suggested, but I think it would be silly to fight against adding them. The "current British practice" vs. "past practice in America" issue is no argument, since I'm not talking about *removing* the semi-official numbering, just adding an *additional* piece of information for those who follow the *current* (not *past*) American practice. The semi-official numbering still has precedence. Rhindle The Red (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who is a link to the new conversation thread. To any editors that see this please make new posts there to avoid confusion over the progression of this discussion. Thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 19:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Plot Summaries
Some series in the list include a brief plot summary while others do not. I added brief plot summaries for the most recent series, but they were reverted as poor summaries. Should we standardize an approach where each series has a brief summary, remove all plot summaries and leave the individual episode links, or leave it as is? Stile4aly (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Name of movie director is incorrect
Under the "Series 7 (2012)" section, the director of the new Doctor Who movie is listed as David Hayes, when it is actually David Yates. Herringway (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. Lost on Belmont (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Official BBC sources have confirmed that the proposed film is "in development", as it has been for many years without ever going anywhere. Yates's involvement does not constitute an announcement that the project is moving forward, only that he has joined the preliminary talks. Does info on the proposed movie really belong on this page? Seems to me it would belong in the appropriate section of the page entitled List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films. Especially considering Yates has confirmed that it is not connected to the TV series.Dirk Amoeba (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Series vs seasons
Copied from my user page The show is a British show and should use 'series' accordingly. The earlier episodes are referred to as part of the 'classic series' so i see no reason to use season. Also, every British TV show should use the term series if it is to be consistant. Mythical Curse (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Vocabulary changes, Mythical Curse. What's done now may not be what was always done. In the days of "Classic" Doctor Who, the BBC used the term season, as was far more common in those days. Please take care to do your homework and be sure of your facts before editing. Edgepedia, are you ready to take this to the 3RR noticeboard? Drmargi (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have done so. Edgepedia (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Mythical Curse, the link you are looking for is : To quote Archive 6 of this talk page "Most sites, such as BBC's Classic Episode Guide, OG, and A Brief History, use the term "season" for the classic series". There's a longer discussion here (from the talk page archives. This has been discussed at length in the past) Edgepedia (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, so I see. I added a few comments about his conduct here, and with reference to a rather inappropriate comment related to a newbie's edits on another article.  I provided the link on his talk page, along with a second, lengthier 3RR warning when he hit the fourth revert.  His response was to clear it all off his talk page, with no response.  Mythical Curse, as I advised you on your talk page, when looking for a consensus discussion, you have to check the talk page archives, not just the current talk page, particularly for an article as actively edited as this one is.  Drmargi (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted back to the version before the recent edit-warring (per WP:PREFER) and fully-protected the page to prevent further edit-warring at this point. Please discuss this first instead of edit-warring over it. Btw, the last discussion about that was from two months ago, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 25. Regards  So Why  12:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't think of looking at the WikiProject! This has been discussed at length in the archives of this talk page earlier this year, in 2009, 2007, 2006 and the very first section in archive 1 in 2004. Edgepedia (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What do people think about having a permanent message on this page - i.e. saying don't change seasons to series without discussing it here first? Edgepedia (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Not that it will ever stop some editors from making the change but we should have something. Here are a few other possibilities.
 * Adding a hidden message using . Maybe more than one.
 * Creating a special archive page that contains all of the past discussions about this that we can point new editors to. See the example at Talk:Oscar Wilde where we made archive three into a section about the discussions about Unencyclopedia and Pop culture sections.
 * An embedded notice that comes up when anyone clicks on the edit tab. Examples include the page protected message that comes up at the moment or something like the one that is seen when editing this page User talk:HJ Mitchell
 * Number three might be the best for grabbing a new editors attention and we might use a combination of all of these. Any other suggestions are welcome and thanks Edgepedia for the getting this started. MarnetteD | Talk 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An alternative would be that we add an FAQ template to this page. We could then refer to previous discussions and the comment would not be archived. Edgepedia (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How about

Edgepedia (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. Many thanks for the work on it. What do you think about adding this hidden message to the first Doctor table where the word season is used the first time. I think that might help as well - although if the wording is awkward please feel free to change it. If we don't get anymore input I would say go ahead and proceed as you see fit. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 18:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Doctor, the widow and the wardrobe transmission date
Is 25 December, from the official Doctor Who Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/bbcdoctorwho/status/141540727409737728

I would add it but the article is currently locked from editing Etron81 (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Added. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Etron81 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 December 2011
The First episode made for 057 was called The Vampire from Space and filmed on the evening of 27Jan1971. Only 1 (one) episode was made before it was changed to The Claws of Axos which is the 4 episodes as known now.

Source: original released DVD

124.178.239.202 (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. That's more suitable for The Claws of Axos article, and I think it's already mentioned there. DonQuixote (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, it is in The Claws of Axos article. Sorry I completely missed it there. there is so much on Dr Who it is easy to get lost in it all :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.239.202 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Found: Galaxy 4 part 2 and Underwater Menace, part 2(?)
BBC News (isnt Underwater part 2 supposed to be there aleady?) -- megA (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: More confusion: BBC Doctor Who site says Galaxy 4 part 3 and Underwater part 2 have been found... -- megA (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first link states "Airlock is the third episode of a four-part story called Galaxy Four" (my emphasis), and "The other re-discovered episode is the second part of The Underwater Menace", so I'm not sure where you get the "Galaxy 4 part 2" from. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I double-checked it when I first posted here of course, and I'm actually quite sure it read "second episode" back then. Maybe it was corrected in the meantime. Or maybe I was very tired... -- megA (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Autocompletion Error
I've just noticed that when you start typing "Doctor Who epi" in the Wikipedia search box, the autocompletion lists this article as "Doctor Who Episode Guide 2005 - 2008". Not a biggie, but I thought I'd let you know as I have no idea where to fix that. 84.56.98.135 (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that Doctor Who Episode Guide 2005 - 2008 no longer exists: it was deleted at 12:24 today; previously, it was a redirect to List of Doctor Who serials. That aside, this page has a large number of aliases, or "redirects" as they are properly known. You will notice from the list that several of them, such as Doctor who episode guide, are variations on a theme. We set up these redirects in order to aid searching, because it's not obvious to most people that to find an episode guide for Doctor Who, they should "really" be looking for List of Doctor Who serials.
 * When you enter something into the search box, the MediaWiki software looks for all articles matching what you've typed so far, for all variations of capitalisation (see  ), and assembles a list, sorted approximately by popularity. The more that you type in, the better it becomes at listing the article which you're really interested in. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted that one. The search bar is not case sensitive, so many of the capitalized variations can be removed. Frankly, I'm shocked to see so many redirects. The most common search terms should suffice. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 17:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials
I was wondering if I could get your opinions on the List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials I have made a sandbox of this page user:sfxprefects/sandbox and as you mentioned above about standardised of List of Doctor Who serials. The colours have been chosen in conjunction with the colours of the DVD artwork. Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it looks great. I would just suggest adding a short summary (using the ShortSummary field) as most "List of X episodes" which do not have individual season pages use this. Glimmer721  talk  23:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Invasion of the Dinosaurs Episode 1 has now been colourised
We can now remove the "(Episode 1 exists in black and white only)" and "contains the last episode of which no copies currently exist in colour (Invasion of the Dinosaurs episode 1) and" from the table on Season 11 as the DVD has now come out with recovered colour on episode 1. Just thought I'd post it here beforehand if somebody had any disagreement (what with it being semi-protected) SundableObject (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I say go ahead and remove it. The same thing occurred with Planet of the Daleks so we have a precedent for the removal. Thanks for checking first. MarnetteD | Talk 19:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The Great Update of December 2011/January 2012
On WT:WHO, Masem made a salient point above about changing the order in which we present the serials on the page (previously the infamous "Chronology of the Doctor Who universe" article): "The problem that I think starts this is that the normal chronology of the events (eg taking place in 1970 or 2 million BC or whenever) is effectively inconsequential, and certainly has minimal impact since, from the show's characters' perspectives, they will witness events completely differently. In other words, say serial 201 happens in 1970, while serial 428 happens in 1968 and serial 639 happens in 1971. It is extremely rare that the 428 serial events in 1968 will influence the 639 serial events beyond the changes in characters, and not so much the events in the interviening world. And of course, what happened in the 428 serial isn't going to be at all a factor in the 201 serial.

What if the approach was reversed: First column of the table would be the serials in show order, and then there would be a list of columns, similar to the individual table heading now, with the cell marked in the column(s) where the episode took place and maybe a specific year or the like. What this would should is where the general time periods that DW has occured in, of course most in 20th and 21st century periods. But, as I suspect, it would also show the trend from the show being part educational at its onset and moving towards outright sci-fi later. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)"

This, I think, would be the best way to go. We should also limit ourselves to a "primary setting" (or two or three if they exist), with the exception of serials such as The Chase which are all over the shot, which can be edited as we see fit. This would, however, mostly duplicate List of Doctor Who serials, so we could maybe add an extra field to the tables on the extreme right (a la List of Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) episodes's survivor count). So, for example, the first revived series would look like this:

These time placements must follow this abridged set of rules from WT:WHO:
 * All dates must include citations to reliable sources, which include but are not limited to the episodes themselves, official BBC summaries, and The Discontinuity Guide, and must not contain original research beyond simple arithmetic. (so, we can say "The Eleventh Hour" takes place in 2008, but not that "The Stolen Earth" takes part in 2009.)
 * Citations to the episode must include timestamps and be of the form from cite episode.
 * If sources conflict or unclear, then use the best range of dates with the available sources. (This is a way of sidestepping the UNIT dating controversy: We place episodes in a "contemporary" setting in relation to each other; likewise, I don't believe that it's stated that "The Parting of the Ways" is after "Boom Town")

We could also take a stab at adding locations for each serial too, with the same rough guidelines. However, given that where these episodes take place is not in doubt, then we could be a bit more lax with citations (besides, the location is given in dialogue). So, for example, the same thing with series five:

To make the citations list tidier, we should use citation subgroups, similar to the greek letters employed for footnotes in the list already.

Related to this, I think it's time the serial list finally migrated to episode list; I think it's the only episode list that doesn't use it or a derivative. The series pages have used it for a while, and the upshot is that we may be able to squeeze more information in, like so:

After some time, when all the series articles have been created, we can cascade these changes down to those pages as much as we can. Or, we can implement the changes there and transclude the episode lists (see: List of Dexter episodes).

Implementation
I'm opening up two discussions here: one for the merge proposal, one for the episode list proposal; both are good ideas, but somewhat linked; neither should shoot down the other. The intended timeline for changes is as thus:
 * 21 December 2011 to 4 January 2012: Discussions open
 * 4 January 2012 to 18 January 2012: New episode list drafting (upon either, or both, passing)
 * Around 20 January 2012: Implementation.

It's probably going to be more than a one-man job; if you would like to help with a certain series (or set of series), please sign this list:


 * Sceptre (talk): Series 4.
 * Rhain1999 (talk): Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Doctors would be easy for me. I can, however, help with the rest if help is needed.

The merge discussion will be a standard merge discussion. The standardisation discussion will be a similar discussion, but we should agree on the fields to include before the end of the discussion.

Merge discussion

 * Support as proposer; I'm sad to see my work in collating (mostly) RSes for that article a few years ago ruined by people who refuse to accept our policies. I've long been an advocate for getting rid of the article, or at least reducing it to a policy-conforming size. Sceptre (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - At this time, merging information from an issue-laden page into a featured list is not an option. So this discussion should not be held until the standardisation of the 'by setting' list is up to wiki standards. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 12:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a trivial, if tedious thing, to properly date most episodes; the BBC classic episode guides have already done most of the work for us. In effect, it's really getting rid of the Chronology page and expanding this list with information from the episode guides or the episode dialogue/captions themselves. Sceptre (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think the Chronology article should exist (I thought it was deleted?), but I don't think this is the right place to put it, if anywhere at all. Glimmer721  talk  03:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Their is a problem with the chronology page, but the solution is to delete that page, not merge it here.188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Move chronology to tardis.wikia.com - In it's current form, the chronology article seem to more suitable for taris.wikia.com that for wikipedia.  I would suggest to see with them if there is an interest for them to accept it so we can move it there.  98.142.249.177 (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree except for, maybe, the Location. I don't necessarily think it's needed? I like the idea, but it's not crucial information that the average reader is going to need when researching basic information on episodes. They can visit the separate episode pages for such a thing.
 * Comment I'm indifferent. But this discussion shows a practically unanimous opinion that there shouldn't be a separate fork for "list of serials by setting" when it will never reach the quality of the main "list of serials". There are 3 commenters (plus myself makes 4) who believe the "list by setting" shouldn't exist, one who says the information should be migrated to the actual page about each episode, one more who admits it's riddled with issues, and the proposer. I'd suggest to the proposer that a redirect would be most consistent with community consensus, and we can use it as a starting point to gradually add verifiable details about the timeline through the Wiki process to the extent that they are relevant. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Standardisation discussion

 * Support as proposer, with fields: Story, episode, title, director, writer, location, time, airdate, length, production code, viewers/AI. Sceptre (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. Rhain1999 (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Undecided - The article is big enough as it is, so I'm not sure merging production- and fictional information is the best way to go. Perhaps our first focus should be getting the settings list up to standards again. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 12:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Split I'm not sure we need Locations or length (length is mentioned in the main text of the sections already isn't it?), but including viewers/AI would bring it in line with many other episode lists on Wikipedia that include this info. Edokter's point about this list being big enough as it is is a good one too... Etron81 (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Split IMO locations is too much detail for this article and is better handled in the individual articles for each story, but as we are trying to bring this into line with other articles I understand the request. I also agree that this list is big enough. In fact I would suggest that the Classic series be split apart from the new one but that is a matter for another time. MarnetteD | Talk 16:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (Very Long) Comment (possible oppose/split)...I'm wondering if all this is really necessary for this article. This is just giving a list of the serials/episodes; knowing when they take place doesn't help to understand which episode is in what season, year, etc. Not to mention it could get very confusing..."The Wedding of River Song" takes place simultaniously with some of "The Impossible Astronaut". If someone is interested in finding out where they take place they can go to the articles themselves. Maybe we could even add that in the serial infobox. I think the episode list thing is okay without the location and time, and it's probably time it was updated. Where would the list of episode titles for the Hartnell era serials go, though (and wouldn't it make it really long)? And when picking out the colors for these can we make them in line with the individual series/season articles, though? (so far there's season 8-26 and series 1-6, I think). Anyway, if we do go to the setting and time I could probably help with implementing series 5-6, though I have seen all of 1 and 2 and about half of 3 and a few episodes of 4 (I'm working on it).  Glimmer721  talk  03:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think it'd be easier to colour by Doctor, instead of colouring by season. Sceptre (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * comment I don't think we need length - unusual lengths can still be noted in the way they are now, bit for most things it's fairly standard, and don't think location is needed (could get very cluttered for stories that have lots). As I said above, I don't agree with merging in the chronology page. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * comment Again, indifferent. Only some of this information is verifiable some of the time. I'm okay with whatever format gets the most relevant and reliable information into the article, without making the format so rigid that we start relying on the original research and opinion of editors to fill in the "blanks". Shooterwalker (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion
Looking at the discussions, I notice some support for an infobox parameter for setting; I've updated Infobox Doctor Who episode, adding the field "setting" for setting, as well as disappearing the "Executive Producer" field if there is none, and utilising the field "ended" by adding a parameter "started". All three of these can be seen in action at. Sceptre (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If anyone would like to see what a Hartnell serial would look like, below is for Galaxy 4: Sceptre (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support both the infobox parameter and the Hartnell serial boxes, though I'm wondering if the time should also be added (not necessarily as a separate parameter, just after it). Of course, I don't know if the time was ever given in Genesis of the Daleks. I'd go through and add it to every episode but I'm on a slow computer for the time being. I'll be able to get to it in a week or two when I'm back to editing. Glimmer721  talk  01:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, either. All I know is that it takes place on Skaro (from the first minute of dialogue). Remember the use of RSes :) Sceptre (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * suggestion maybe move 'length' to before director/writer like it is just now? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Rhain1999 (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Attempt 1
(by Rhain1999 - talk ) Without a final decision from the merge/change proposer, I haven't changed anything myself. However, I did have a go at the first season, without the "Location" and "Time" as many discussion editors proposed, and I'm ready to change anything which is of need. Here's Season 1: I think it looks quite well. Please comment with what you think below so we can make a decision on whether this one should be used or not. Rhain1999 (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey: I'd suggest using the parameter "RTitle" for the italic titles, and not using EpisodeNumber2, as they're the same thing. Sceptre (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. So, you're the proposer of all of this discussion. I'd like to ask - in which direction do we go from now? As I'd like to help as much as I can. Rhain1999 (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, no-one's opposed to standardisation, but merging the Chronology article doesn't have any traction. Sceptre (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, do we go ahead with this table thing that I just put above? Or will we wait? Because I can begin work on the rest of the episodes right now if you wish. Rhain1999 (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Click on this link -> for Seasons 1-2. Rhain1999 (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: exactly what is the 'episode' column for? It looks like it's just 'number in season' - which is obvious due to the order. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is, basically, exactly that! But it's not entirely obvious with big seasons to which episode is which number of the season. Rhain1999, Rhain1999, 22:43, 5 January 2012 (AEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.53.215 (talk)


 * My overall sentiment is that it doesn't really improve things. It looks a bit cluttered and the red is too in-your-face. I generally go by "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". — Edokter  ( talk ) — 13:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny, I was just looking at this, and the same metaphor jumped to mind. This doesn't add anything except ratings, makes the ratings hard to connect to their corresponding episode (especially versus the old, nicely aligned format), and seems to be more in service of adding color than anything else.  I see no reason for the change; if editors want the ratings, it's easy to add a column to the existing table format.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I have to agree with Edoktor and Drmargi. For me the ratings are just bloat and clutter here and are listed in an easily read format on the page for each serial. The change in colo(u)r seems unneeded as well. MarnetteD | Talk 20:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like we don't have sufficient consensus to make any change, then. --Drmargi (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Attempt 2
(by Sceptre - talk ) Here's a less cluttered version below: I do think that standardisation is a good enough reason to change; yes, it isn't broke, but it's not really a "fix". I should point out that the current version may fail FL criterion 4 due to it being a unique way of tabling which we don't have a reason for retaining. Sceptre (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "where helpfull [provides] table sort facilities." There is no mention of how a table should be structured. The only difference is the use of a template. I don't see that as an enough reason to change. The tables as the are now can be sorted (but it wouldn't be helpfull). Not necessarily opposed to using the template per se though, but I wonder why the LineColor isn't working. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 01:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I want to say thanks for all your work on these Sceptre whether we have liked them or not. I appreciate all the time put in. I do think that this one is preferable to those that have come before. I especially like reducing the air dates to one line (they way they are now is another example of clutter that has always left me cold.) If we could just have a paragraph telling everyone that serials for the first three seasons of the show had individual titles and then direct readers to the individual articles then the table would look even cleaner but I know that it is likely that I am alone in that. Full disclosure: reaching "Featured status" has never meant much to me for reasons that I won't bore anyone with here. But, I certainly would not stand in the way of those that are working toward it for this list so, if the table has to be changed, I would approve of this version. MarnetteD | Talk 01:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re Edokter: LineColor only works when the summary field is not empty. I'm going to make a sandbox version of season 1 in my userspace so we can collaboratively work on it. Sceptre

Attempt 3
(by Sceptre - talk ) (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: We can have a sub-template such as Episode list/Colbert to tailor to our specific needs. Sceptre (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this version. It is concise and easy to read. Yes it leaves out the individual episode names but a list doesn't need to include all the details - that is what the individual articles are for. One minor point (and this may well be the kind of detail that I was just referring to) do you think we should have a footnote explaining why The Sensorites is 6 episodes spread out over 7 weeks? Otherwise it looks good. MarnetteD | Talk 04:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think most people will assume that there was a break halfway through transmission. Note: I've just added a "Missing episodes" field for the Hartnell lot. Sceptre (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much like this one! A lot better than my version! Would I be able to help with anything? Rhain1999 (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think length and date should be before writer/director. I'd suggest Number-title-length-[missing episodes for 60s ones]-broadcast dates-writer(s)-director(s)-code 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't see the point in moving Length and Date before Director and Writer. The writer and the director change throughout almost each consecutive episode, whereas length only changes because of the number of episodes. So, the writer and the director are, therefore, more important and also more notable. Rhain1999 (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this new version as well, and agree the Director and Writer should be before Length and Date. And I'd thought I'd bring this up here: Do you think episode list should be used for List of Torchwood episodes and List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials? I thought it would be helpful as it is customary and it also provides for a short summary, which would be helpful as each individual season does not have their own page (with the exception of Miracle Day). Just wondering what you thought. Glimmer721  talk  22:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea, also considering that it wouldn't be difficult and the page/s wouldn't be crowded due to the low number of episodes. Torchwood only has 35 episodes, The Sarah Jane Adventures only has around 30 episodes (or about 50 if you add each individual story), whereas Doctor Who has a staggering 785 (around about) serials/episodes! If we have anyone disapproving of the TW/SJA episode page changes, then we will have a discussion about it. But, for now, I think it's a good idea! :) Rhain1999 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me as well - as an aside, it's already used for List of K-9 episodes Etron81 (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, are we going to go ahead with this one? If you haven't noticed yet, I've done a bit more work on the workspace page of Sceptre, to save time (if this is the outcome of this discussion) and to test the look of it. I quite like it. Good work, Sceptre. Rhain1999 (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: shouldn't the multi-part, multi-title serials have their own rows. I admit that when I added the "Single=Yes" parameter to the episode list template, it was a cludge for "Mission to the Unknown" and The End of Time. Indeed, if we're going to end up with season articles for each series which we'll transclude in (let's cross that bridge when we get to it, though), then they should be separate. Sceptre (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very little with knowledge on Wikipedia and the 'source' and stuff like that, so it would be up to you with what we would do. And, anyway, are we going to go ahead with this thing? Because, as mentioned above, implementation (if it occurs), is to happen very soon! Rhain1999 (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2011 (AEST)
 * Hello? Are we going to go ahead with this or not?! Rhain1999 (talk) 12:00PM, 4 February 2011 (AEST)
 * I think it's safe to assume that people would like it implemented... Sceptre (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Season and Episode versus episode number?
Is there a specific reason that 'Rebel Flesh' is written as 217a on some sites and S06E05 on others? It makes it harder to find information on specific episodes sometimes...71.196.246.113 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 217 is the number of serials/stories that have been broadcast. S06E05 is a neologism and is an abbreviation of Series/Season 6, Episode 5. Rebel Flesh is also listed on this page under Series 6. DonQuixote (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

page title need to be changed
page title need to be changed. it should be a "List of Doctor Who series". not serials Tigerbomb8 (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:WHO/MOS - "season", "serial" and "series" have different meanings. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Airdates
The system in use at the moment is a mess, it should be the original airdate the show aired (only 1 date) in its country of origin, of if the other air dates are dates of broadcast in other countrys it should be made known. having a list of dates is a mess when you only have 1 original air date the rest are repeats and thus have no use here or are other countrys air dates and are thus mislabled94.168.211.137 (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The list currently only lists the original date in the country of origin (UK) for all epsiodes, expect for the few that had their premieres outside the UK - these list all foreign airdates before the UK one and the UK date - these are noted on the list. Are you saying that these few instances should only list the world premiere date only? Etron81 (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just bad link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fay_%28writer%29 instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fay (in Series 7 (2012–13)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.134.42.143 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, see . -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)