Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 12

Series 7 minisodes
Is there a reason why the minisodes from the Series 7 DVD set are excluded? I am referring to "Rain Gods," "Clara and the TARDIS," and "The Inforarium." Seeing as the DVD set was released in September (I think), they should likely be filed under the "Specials (2013)" header. I'd do it myself, but I am but a lowly anonymous user, and I don't want to step on any toes. --193.71.109.192 (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking these don't met the criteria for inclusion, No. 2. (listed on this page in the last box)? — i.e. it wasn't broadcast by the BBC. Edgepedia (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I did consider that. They were published by BBC, but never actually broadcast. I suspect the rule was implemented to weed out "unofficial" works. It seems like a spirit of the law thing to me. The minisodes do constitute a contribution to the series equal to any of the other (actually broadcast) mini-episodes. And I am almost positive they will be made available on something like BBC's Youtube channel eventually. But if you want to hold off for now, I can totally respect that. Thanks. --193.71.109.192 (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorting table by date doesn't work
When trying to sort the table by date, it is out of order. This is probably because the dates are not numerical. If using numerical dates would yield correct results when sorting by date, then I think it should be done. My Wikipedia (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean the series overview table as it's the only sortable table on this page. Isn't this already sorted in chronological order ?
 * However, numerical dates can't be used as they are ambiguous; there are other ways of getting dates to sort correctly. Edgepedia (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had another look at the table and I'm wondering what we gain my making it sortable:


 * Doctor, Season/Series, Premiere Date and Finale Date all follow the some order. BTW the dates sort for me, except those rows with multiple ones.
 * The Premiere viewers column also has multiple figures and again these don't sort properly.
 * Is there a need for this table to be sortable? If there is, then I suggest we only enable sortability on the Episodes, Premiere Date, Finale viewers and average viewer columns, using the template on the Premiere Date rows that need it. Edgepedia (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would prefer because you don't need to use two parameters -  needs both a sort key and a string to display, and has no requirement for these to be related. That is,  is not only more compact, but is less likely to break than  where somebody might put   which are less likely to be spotted as errors. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redrose, the dates sort correctly for me, except when there are two dates. Doesn't this always work? I'm using Chrome on Windows 7.
 * I was thinking we could use Edgepedia (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that the javascript that does the sorting won't recognise them as dates, but as plain text: thus Series 1 will be sorted after Series 7 Part 2, because the text string "26 March 2005" is greater than the text string "25 December 2012". -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can scramble the order by sorting on the season/series column, which doesn't sort properly. I can them attempt to reorder by sorting on Premiere Date, and the resulting table starts with all the season correctly ordered, followed by series 1 and series 5, and then the rest (with multiple entries) at the bottom. I can't explain it, but it seems the javascript is understanding the dates, at least on my computer, but is confused by other text in the cell. Edgepedia (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that is a better sort mechanism but is there any actual benefit to having a sortable table? =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 21:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Season 9 (2015) heading addition
Would someone please add a heading for season 9? With info per Moffat re Peter Capaldi to appear in season 9 in 2015. source is here: http://www.digitalspy.com/british-tv/s7/doctor-who/news/a542804/doctor-who-series-9-to-air-in-2015-says-steven-moffat.html. Sorry, I'm not wiki-savvy. 69.206.250.149 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It says that Capaldi is to start in series 8, and series 9 is planned for 2015, but says nothing about Capaldi continuing. The series is shown in the first table. Edgepedia (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2014
Revision to section Eleventh Doctor. As Matt Smith's tenure on the program has ended, I suggest the following revision:

Eleventh Doctor

The Eleventh Doctor is portrayed by Matt Smith. Steven Moffat took over as head writer and executive producer after Russell T Davies stepped down. Julie Gardner also stepped down as executive producer and was replaced by Piers Wenger and Beth Willis.

should read:

Eleventh Doctor

The Eleventh Doctor was portrayed by Matt Smith. Steven Moffat took over as head writer and executive producer after Russell T Davies stepped down. Julie Gardner also stepped down as executive producer and was replaced by Piers Wenger and Beth Willis.

Thank youDljungleskip (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Dljungleskip (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely the Eleventh Doctor is still portrayed by Matt Smith; (Dictionary says 'played the part of in a film or play'). Capaldi will play the Twelfth Doctor. Edgepedia (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not sure about this. You can say 'Rick Blaine is portrayed by Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca' or 'Rick Blaine was portrayed by Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca'. (After all, I sit down and watch the film Bogart is still starring) What do other people think? Edgepedia (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014
That's a bit stupid, and of very small significance, but the average viewers in the table are the average for a season in UK, except for the movie where there's an average of US and UK viewership. It would be more logical to restrain the average viewers data to UK. It's really nagging me.Ryzours (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that's because, unusually, the movie was shown in the US almost two weeks before it was broadcast on the BBC. What do other editors think? Edgepedia (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the average of the UK and US viewing figures is in anyway meaningful, through. Edgepedia (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Series, seasons, serials; wrongly used terminology
Can someone please explain the choice for using different words such as series, serials and seasons as if they were synonyms in articles about Doctor Who? I think there has been a mix-up of terminology. The articles look like confusing high school essays to me. As I understand - and feel free to correct me - the correct global terminology (as in: 'not-UK terminology') is as following:

Series 1: 1963 – 1989

– Season 1

…

– Season 26

Series 2: 2005 – … (reboot)

– Season 1

…

– Season 8

In British terminology they may have swapped the definition of "series" and "seasons", but that shouldn't matter on Wikipedia. To make things worse, the listing of the original series follow the global terminology which I wrote out, while the new series (the reboot) seem to follow British wording. That is likely meant to make the reboot stand out, but also causes confusion for non-UK readers as it suggests every year a new spin-off series is started.

I suggest replacing the 'wrong' usage of "series" and "serials" with "seasons". That should make things easier to read and understand, rather than using different terminologies interchangeably within articles. The first notable fix would be the title of the article ("serials" should be "seasons" in 'global' terminology). Or, if we stick to the UK terminology, the word season would probably disappear altogether. But I think that would look weird to most people who do not live in the UK.

Any feedback/opinions? Keep it Bubbly (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Keep it Bubbly, this has been discussed several times before, so we created an FAQ box on this page, second from the top.
 * As it says, most sources use the term "season" for the classic series. What sources do you have that differ from this? Edgepedia (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've re-read your comment above, I may have misunderstood. Please note this article is written in British English, see WP:ENGVAR. Edgepedia (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Edgepedia, thank you for your answer. Thanks for mentioning the FAQ (missed it while skimming the many yellow boxes) and the archive; I wasn't yet aware talk pages are actually archived. I also read the section on language style. Personally, I disagree, because Wikipedia was supposed to be international and not a dialect-targeted encyclopedia. But I guess the rules are not up to random international editors. Feel free to delete my section. Thanks for the help! :) Bubbly (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Bubbly you will want to read WP:ENGVAR. Quite early on it was agreed that dialect targeting was to be a feature of the encyclopedia. We have articles written in UK, American and Australian English. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 04:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah thanks, I understand. I just don't think an encyclopedia that identifies itself as international should target dialects. Not-dialect-speaking people should be able to use the encyclopedia, it's literally meant for them if it's an international encyclopedia. But that's just my opinion as an 'International English' speaker and I guess English Wiki is going to be dialect-based, unlike other wiki's. I'll just get used to it. Is there a statistic about the ratio of which dialect is used most? I have no idea how you guys find all of these useful pages in between the thousands of Wikipedia explanation pages, lol. Bubbly (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see also WP:WHO/MOS. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is really useful, thanks you. Shouldn't we put this on the main page (as well) as a legend or just link to it? This seems a hot topic, so readers would likely appreciate it. Bubbly (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Transmitted"
May be a case of ENGVAR, but "transmitted" is used twice in the list where "broadcast" or "aired" may be a preferable choice. 70.160.50.245 (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing items
A number of items are missing. First, as the TARDIODES are recognized, so too should those episodes accompanied by prequels, especially the titled prequels like Vastra Investigates and She Said, He Said. Second, there is also Demons Run: Two Days Later which was a standalone minisode. The list is also omitting the three minisodes included in the Series 7 box set: The Inforarium, Clara and the TARDIS and Rain Gods. Note to whomever adds Rain Gods that it was written by Neil Gaiman, but Steven Moffat was credited on the DVD due to a production error. This can easily be verified via Google. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria are in the last box at the top of this page, although these can be changed if there is consensus. Edgepedia (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the current practice of linking to the TARDISODE page (above the series 2 section) is sufficient for that - a similar note could be done for prequels (eg "some episodes had prequels - see [whatever] page for info" 94.194.111.72 (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I previously posted a comment about the numerous mini episodes and prequels which are missing. My comment was deleted on the grounds that these episodes do not meet the criteria, however I think there is inconsistency here. There is no difference in branding between for example "Clara and the TARDIS" or "He Said, She Said" (both of which are omitted) and mini-episodes like "The Night of The Doctor" and "The Last Day" (which are included). Surely the purpose of this wikipedia article is to be THE definitive list of canon Doctor Who narrative episodes? I can understand why the TARDISodes and some of the "red button" features could be missed out, but it strikes me plenty of these mini-episodes and prequels contain very relevant backstory - for example about Amy & Rory, about River Song, and about Clara. Shouldn't we just add all "prequels" and mini-episodes that have been officially released by the BBC? - Alexbowyer (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think it "was deleted on the grounds that these episodes do not meet the criteria"; it wasn't deleted - it was to Talk:List of Doctor Who serials/Archive 11. This was because it had not been posted to for ten days, that being the archiving age limit on this page. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am in full agreement with Alex. For consistency's sake, they should all be on here or all be off. --Don Bodo (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a HUGE difference between something that is a story in itself ["night of the Doctor"] and something that is only a trailer for the episode ["He said she said"] - prequels are noted in the episode articles (where they should be noted) and don't need to be mentioned here. 94.193.247.90 (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I don't agree with the line currently taken, as I'd class some things currently in as not really being a story in themselves (eg The Great Detective) 94.193.247.90 (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Night of the Doctor is a trailer for Day of the Doctor. It has no ending. I don't even know if it has a middle. --Don Bodo (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops
I just messed up the formatting.--Fred Bloggs (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted it back to the last stable version. You might want to try and debug it in your sandbox. DonQuixote (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, listing the missing episodes with full episode titles instead of episode numbers makes it slightly less legible, especially if a serial has several missing episodes. In addition, The Daleks' Master Plan seems to have some incorrectly marked missing episodes, (I can't edit it myself, since the article is semi-protected). Heliagon (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Series 8 New Episodes
A few new episodes have been confirmed to be in series 8 and need to be added.

Rectar2 (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * They must be confirmed by the BBC before we add them.  07:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As Edoktor states we wait until they are confirmed by the BBC. Titles and airing order can be and have been changed at a late date. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Serials or episodes
I strongly feel that List of Doctor Who serials doesn't quite fit the article anymore. I am for a change in name to either List of Doctor Who episodes or List of Doctor Who serials and episodes, because I think it is more relevant to the article especially since the serial formula was abandoned years ago.

Obviously I will not make the change right away, but I would like to discuss it here first. My aim is that with this change the page can be easier to find since the term serial is not a now-used phrase in Doctor Who, compared to episodes.

Let me know what you think. I guess it doesn't matter either way, it's just a matter of correction. Thanks --RachelRice (talk, contribs) 21:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly honest with you, neither is correct. One episode isn't a serial, but if we had to list all 800 episodes it would be a nightmare (and you obviously would have to break up the serials). Most fans get around this by simply using the term "story" as it is ambiguous enough to cover serials but also single episode "stories" easily fit into this definition as well. If any term was to be used I feel that would probably be the best, but the question is can a reliable source be found using the term. I'm guessing Doctor Who Magazine will have something on the matter at some point, or perhaps somebody connected to the show has mentioned the term in this context in an interview somewhere, even simply by saying something like "My favourite Doctor Who story is...". Ruffice98 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If we use "stories", we would need to specify "television stories"; otherwise, the list could include novels, audio stories, comics, candy wrappers... That said, I wouldn't be opposed to "List of Doctor Who television stories". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Only problem with that is that there are radio serials listed as well. Becomes a bit problematic for naming purposes, unless we split it into two or more articles, or have it as "broadcast stories" (might match a bit into the BBC's canon policy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruffice98 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Shh! Don't mention the c-word! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * List of Doctor Who television stories would make much more sense. Especially since radio broadcasts are listed under the "other stories" section. However, I won't move the page if an agreement can't be made. --RachelRice (talk, contribs) 15:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you do a formal move request, if you're comfortable with that procedure. That way we can be certain there is a consensus before the move. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Production Codes
Why does some of the episodes have no production code listed? --Danniesen (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Because no one has published them (yet).  14:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not that they haven't been published, the production team stopped using production codes so they decided it was pointless continuing to make them just for the sake of formality. The final episode to ever use a code was "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe", which had the code "X11" according to the DWM companion covering the episode (and on another note could somebody please add that to the article as it is currently locked, also "A Christmas Carol" was "2.X" according to the equivalent magazine covering it, I'm sure the specific issues and volumes can be found easily enough). Ruffice98 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If they are no longer in use, should the columns get removed? Otherwise we will just have a bunch of empty columns and people will think it is missing information. --KnightMiner (t&#124;c) 03:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd think so. Same goes for the series articles, as they have similar columns as well (even worse in those cases as they are labeled "TBA"). Ruffice98 (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * All gone now.  10:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Twelfth Doctor for Series 9
All posted in the past couple of days... Worth adding?

http://seriable.com/doctor-series-9-capaldi-confirmed/ http://www.spoilertv.com/2014/08/doctor-who-season-9-confirmed-with.html http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/capaldi-already-signed-for-series-9-65237.htm http://www.thegallifreytimes.co.uk/2014/08/capaldi-confirmed-for-series-9.html http://www.virginmedia.com/tvradio/news/story/2014/08/08/peter-capaldi-extends-doctor/ 220.245.146.235 (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * They all source themselves back to "The Sun" and an age old "anonymous insider source" which is hardly reliable. Mark Gatiss made a comment a while back about being commissioned for two Capaldi episodes that were not "necessarily be in this season" (referring to the 2014 one). Might be worth checking out as a writer from the team is clearly a better source than some "insider" who won't even give their name, although his comment is quite vague:

http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/gatiss-confirms-two-capaldi-eps-hints-at-jane-austen-story-62036.htm Ruffice98 (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2014
The title of the the second episode of Series 8 has been announced by the BBC: "Into The Dalek". 

I&#39;mthethirteenthdoctor (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - by another - Arjayay (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2014
Please add the double square brackets  around Kill the Moon, as I've created a page for the episode.

Owenrhys (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

✅ - Arjayay (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Table Layout
Why are editors so vehement against changing the layout of the tables? (In this case, layout means the width.) I've modified the width to keep the episodes on one line, since they're getting split due to multiple writers, but this seems to stick not for long. The omission of the code column from Series 7 onwards seemed alright for a table width change. I'm not seeing the reason why the tables have to remain the same width as its predecessors. An explanation would be greatly appreciated. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Changing the widths only causes other columns to split on other screen resolutions. The columns have been set up to accomodate the most common column contents with the least risk of splitting on common screen resolutions, but it can never be eliminated. We would like to have a uniform look instead of jumping column widths all the time. Any edits changing the column widths are usually reverted, because they are always prompted by one person's screen resolution and personal preference, but we do have the entire internet to consider.  21:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Episode duration
For the new series (since 2005) the episode duration is only listed if it's not the standard length of 45 minutes. Using "Robot of Sherwood" as an example, the BBC1 timeslot is 50 mins in length. However, the episode lasted 47 mins. Similarly, "Deep Breath" says 76 mins, when the timeslot was originally 80 mins. If we're being precise, most episodes are not exactly 45 minutes - they are 42-43 minutes. It would be silly to say 42 mins on every episode. So, would it be simpler to show the length of the timeslot - or the actual, exact length of each episode? JamminBen (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What if the 50 minute timeslot is the new standard? Then we should not list "50 mins" for each eipsode.  16:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you find a notable source saying that 50 mins is the new standard? If it is the new standard, then Series 8 could be updated to say "Standard episode length is 50 mins unless otherwise stated". Then, episode 1 would say 76 mins (actually it should be 80 mins as that was the timeslot), episodes 2 and 6 would say 45 mins, and episodes 3, 4 and 5 would say nothing at all. JamminBen (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We really do not need to note every deviation smaller then 5 minutes.  13:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Previous episodes of the new series say 50 mins in places. If that is not really necessary, then those should be taken out. The standard running time could be 45-50 mins with longer episodes (or indeed shorter mini-episodes) only having the runtime specified. What do you think? I'm not really bothered if episodes are a few minutes longer, but it would be good to make the article consistent. JamminBen (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Live +7 Ratings
Just a general query about ratings. Or a proposition to consider a slight change. The current ratings shown on each series are made up of over nights and final 'time shifted' viewership, right? And that's the way that they've always been done. But I've noticed that there is a slightly more accurate measure of viewership with BARB's Live+7 ratings counts which take into account iplayer ratings and people who only watched the repeats as well. Wouldn't the ratings be more accurate if the Live+7 ratings were used to replace the current calculated ratings? Just a general interest thing. JIGoodier1992 (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It would make sense given they are the figures the BBC use internally, however there is one big problem and that is finding a source. While it is probably fairly easy to find some of the components, finding specific iPlayer ratings can be hard, and I'm not aware of any sites that report the Live+7 figures. The occasional one is published, but not all of them. Find a source then it is certainly worth a shot. Ruffice98 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Number of episodes per season
In the opening for Season 7, the article states "The seasons would continue to have between 20 and 26 episodes until season 22."

This is not true. Season 18 has 28 episodes. This should be corrected. 67.170.139.242 (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Corrected. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing entry - Specials table
In the "Specials" table the Special for the 50th Anniversary, "The Day of the Doctor" is missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erg322 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The specials table under Overview of seasons and series? It doesn't need a separate listing, since it's part of the 2013 specials. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Episode codes?
Are the codes right for the Eleventh Doctor Series 5 (2010) episodes? They don't seem to match, they duplicate codes from the Ninth Doctor Series 1 (2005) episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.29.172 (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are correct.  12:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Seasons 4 and 21
In the overview table, seasons 4 and 21 are attributed to the Second and Fifth Doctors, respectively. However, the first two serials of season 4 featured the First Doctor, and the last of season 21 featured the Sixth. I am aware that this is noted later down the page, but I feel that the main table is a bit misleading as is. Can it be changed to reflect this inconsistency, or would it be too complicated to do that without significantly altering the entire table?The Mighty Trought (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean in the Series Overview table? It could be done, and I agree that it should. Give the columns in Season 4/21's rows a rowspan of 2, and bring the respective Doctors up/down one row. Any other views?
 * ✅ How's that? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Using "half" rows creates accessability issues for screenreaders, so I have undone that part.  09:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Where's the documentation that states this? First I've heard of it. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ACCESS.  11:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Documentation provided states nothing on the topic of "half" rows. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Having two rows featuring the same information is confusing. Why not just put a note to explain that nth Doctor only featured in nth number of episodes? --RachelRice (talk, contribs) 13:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed name change of article?
Though Doctor Who began in serial format, it has been episodic for a very long time. The whole of 2005 Doctor Who has been done in individual episodes. Having the word serials in the title of the article rather than episodes is a bit misleading considering this.

Changing the article's name to List of Doctor Who episodes would be more up to date with the show's current set up. Edfilmsuk (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This seems logical, especially considering that the old series was also composed of episodes – they were just grouped differently most of the time. Come to think of it, there are some classic episodes that can't accurately be described as "serials" at all – The Five Doctors for instance. —Flax5 18:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree. 2005 Doctor Who isn't the entire series. In fact, it's not even a quarter. Ignoring an entire 25 years of serials just to go along with 9 years of episodes. I propose that it stays how it is. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Both of you have good points. So how about changing it to "List of Doctor Who stories?" That way, both the classic and new Who will be covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C97:5C70:D8D2:F25B:3167:4F0D (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with "List of Doctor Who stories" is that it would only be an accurate title if it also included every novel, short story, comic strip and audio play released under the Doctor Who brand. "List of Doctor Who TV stories" would make sense, but the phrase "TV story" is used so rarely in real life that it seems inappropriate somehow. —Flax5 00:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with "List of Doctor Who episodes", as the original serials could be referred to as episodes, but the modern episodes cannot be referred to as serials. --KnightMiner (t&#124;c) 00:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This has come up before, most recently here. There was a requested move to "List of Doctor Who episodes" back in January 2013, which officially closed with a recommendation to split the article into two ("serials" for the classic series, "episodes" for the new series). However, there was little enthusiasm for that at the WikiProject, and it never happened.


 * Personally, I think that either "List of Doctor Who television stories" or "List of Doctor Who serials and episodes" would be best. Do we want to have a formal move request, to see what the general consensus is now? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "List of Doctor Who television stories" does not account for the section "Other stories". "List of Doctor Who serials and episodes" I like a little better of the two, but both seem a little long.


 * Splitting the article would make sense as to separating the old series from the new (readers to the new series article can read back to the first episode of the new series), although the two series are not that majorly different. The new series often would build upon the old one.


 * As for a formal move request, I would agree to that, though I am less familiar as to doing such on a wiki this size (most of the wiki's I have been on have a somewhat different move proposal system).


 * KnightMiner (t&#124;c) 22:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see what's wrong with 'episodes'. You're listing the episodes of the 63-89 run right now. Ok several joined together, but there are still episodes.  Absolutely no split though - Doctor Who is one show, not two - splitting would imply two different things.  213.104.176.176 (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I second the latter part of the above, concerning the split. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Episodes" is good, that was my original comment. Although "Serials and episodes" would also do well as to describe the more common name for the older episodes.
 * As for a split, it is hardly needed, I simply said a split would make sense, but should be avoided. (sometimes my comments are a bit confusing as to my final decision)
 * --KnightMiner (t&#124;c) 15:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the current title does the job and is accurate, so why bother making things more complicated yet again? Mezigue (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Because "Serials" does not at all describe the new series, since serials have not been produced in a while. --KnightMiner (t&#124;c) 15:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with the move for the same reasons as AlexTheWhovian above. Just because the word serials isn't regularly used in modern-day Britain it doesn't mean it doesn't accurately describe the show, there are plenty of multi-parters in the rebooted series. And also, like the point made above, the 2005 version serves as less than 20% of the entirety of Doctor Who's run. Bestbaggiesfan ✉  00:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "Serials" are not accurate, because some stories listed aren't "serials", they're "episodes". By changing the name to List of Doctor Who episodes, that would account for everything, because the classic series also featured the use of "episodes". --RachelRice (talk, contribs) 13:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, some NuWho episodes are serials, but since some (as well as a few classics) are not serials, the current name describes some but not all covered material. Since serials are made up of episodes, "List of Doctor Who episodes" would describe everything in the article. So, I definitely think it would be an improvement. 2602:30A:2C97:5C70:D142:9627:DCF3:940A (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with bestbaggiesfan, I think it should remain as "serials", because even though is not a common word to use in this kind of pages, it really suits it, because if we count there's more serials than one-episode stories, "episodes" would be accurate if every story of the entire 50 years of the show was a one-episode story, or at least the majority, and this is not the case. Karlitatv (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Split to List of Doctor Who Serials (1963-1989) and List of Doctor Who Episodes (2005-). The lead asserts clear as day that "in 2005 Doctor Who '​s serial nature was abandoned in favour of an episodic format". A split doesn't mean that the two era's are being classed as different programmes; but it would remedy a couple of issues (namely the current article being very long and differentiating the production of the show from 2005 onwards to the production of the show in the 60's, 70's and 80's). Whilst there is a clear narrative continuity within the two eras, the production of Doctor Who from 2005 onwards shares little with that during the previous century. Any list of serials and episodes should be composed from a behind the scenes point of view. As it stands there is something incredibly cluncky about the "Overview of seasons and series" section of the page. If the page isn't split into two articles, then it should be split at least into two clearer halves - "Overview of Seasons" and "Overview of Series" Eshlare (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Any split would - intended or not - just increase the misconception that it is two different shows. The 60's, 70's and 80's were several different productions - and serials doesn't fit that either as there were things that were not serials then.  OK a lot less, but still not all serials.  Episodes fits everything (serials are made up of episodes) and fits the "behind the scenes point of view" that it is one thing.  213.104.176.176 (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What misconception? Eshlare (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Doctor Who Episodes' redirects to this page - why not not just go 'serials and episodes' to cover both formats, and move the redirects for 'doctor who serials' and 'doctor who episodes' to that so that anyone searching for just one still finds it? 90.213.189.40 (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Having read the responses to my proposition, it seems that there may be support for change after all. I think that 'list of Doctor Who episodes and serials' is a little too clunky as a title. Putting the term 'television story' - a seldom used phrase - would not account for the other depictions of Doctor Who (novels, plays etc.). I believe that this article should be changed to 'List of Doctor Who episodes', not only because it is more up-to-date terminology and has more relevance, also because the early serials can also be named episodes in their own right. Edfilmsuk (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I can see that everyone is in favour of having this pages name changed, which I am also for; but I am just wondering if anyone has considered List of Doctor Who stories. As at the top of the page within the second sentence it states that;  810 individual episodes, including one television movie of Doctor Who, have been aired, encompassing 251 stories  Which now to my calculation would be 257 stories if I'm not mistaken. I just feel that every possibility has to be taken into account before a final decision can be made. 13thDoctor93 (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Not everyone. I personally think it should stick. And CTRL+F for the word 'stories' - it's already been discussed. And it would still be 251. Flatline was Story 250, and Dark Water/Death in Heaven will be Story 252. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the support for my proposition. As a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, I am unfamiliar with its more complex features. Could an advanced Wikipedia user please begin a Wiki Project to change the name of this article, or do a vote...? Edfilmsuk (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Live +7 Ratings - Source?
http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2014/10/live-7-figures.html

I'm in the process of trying to find out where these guys got their information, but these fellows are extremely reliable because they only post news that has been reported. These are the Live + 7 ratings for the first four episodes of Series 8. JIGoodier1992 (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Same source as here, which is the source currently used for the final viewer counts, though we only list final viewers, not L+7 viewers. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Production codes
The production codes weren't abandoned from Asylum onwards. I found the production codes for each episode on the Doctor Who Wikia called "Tardis Data Core". It is very reliable because of the fact that they don't add stuff without being completely sure, and if somebody do so, it will be almost immediately removed again. Even though everyone can edit it, they can be trusted because of these facts. --Danniesen (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Doctor Who Wikia called "Tardis Data Core" is just that - a Wiki(a). Anyone can edit it. That'd be like sourcing Wikipedia on a Wikipedia article. It's not a reliable source. If they give a source, then use that. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well... What are the sources for the rest of the episodes? --Danniesen (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Doctor Who Magazine. DonQuixote (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Formal move request to List of Doctor Who episodes

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below; it does not appear that there is consensus for a split either, but that is not within the purview of the close of a requested move, so discussion on that point should continue as necessary. Dekimasu よ! 02:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials → List of Doctor Who episodes – The original serials could properly be referred to as episodes, but the current episodes cannot properly be referred to as serials. This creates an error as the title of the article does not fully describe its content.

Also, as per WP:Article titles, the title of a page should be what the reader would generally type in when searching for the article, and currently episodes is the commonly recognizable term for for Doctor Who episodes. The majority of people who would type "serials" are only those who know the article currently lies at that title.

-- KnightMiner (t&#124;c) 02:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Split apart the new Doctor Who can be listed at the new title. The old Doctor (including the US telefilm, which involved a large about of Sylvester McCoy) can occupy the current title. The list is quite long, and a logical breakpoint is the resurrection of Doctor Who. Further, the BBC referred to the series as the new Doctor Who, and markets the DVD box sets starting with Series 1 with the 21st century resurrection, so if you're not WP:INUNIVERSE, then it should be split along these lines, it is how the outside world views Doctor Who (including the BBC) and even some fandom publications. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. No - the BBC calls it 'doctor who' - "new Doctor Who" is a term invented by people who don't like it.  If you're following sources rather than points of view then it should all be one thing.  213.104.176.176 (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, "new Doctor Who" is exactly the phrase used on advertisements aired on BBC1 as well as BBC America, BBC World Service, etc when the series started, and for many years thereafter. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Any sources for that whatsoever? It is Doctor Who. Tphi (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nomination. —Flax5 20:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not support, as per my reasons in the "Proposed name change of article" thread. And since no official name was agreed upon before this user decided to start this thread. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You claimed we should leave it with the current name because the new series is less than a quarter of the total series? Is that an excuse for a title that is not only not relevant to modern times (the title relating to a modern show), but also does not fully describe the article? Episodes is relevant to the old and new series, while serials only fits the old series. KnightMiner (t&#124;c) 21:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not an excuse, it's my view. That's what was asked for. Surprisingly, we all have different ones. However, the main reason for my lack of support was the latter half of my comment, which I noticed was conveniently ignored. But also, yes, thank you for repeating the rest of my reason. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your opinion. And I did answer the latter half below (someone else has the same opinion). I could use re there if you like. KnightMiner (t&#124;c) 04:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not support per Alex. Tphi (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not support, as Alex has already explained, there was no proposed agreement to name that it would be changed to. 13thDoctor93 (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that "episodes" was agreed upon, as every other suggestion was shot down and episodes was the initial topic that was rather agreed upon, plus several people proposed a formal move request. Also, am I to understand you disagree because a previous topic did not agree? You do not disagree because of some problem with the proposed title, or some preference with the original? KnightMiner (t&#124;c) 21:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In an ideal world I would vote to split apart, (serials and episodes) to make the topic more user-friendly (currently too long) and to reflect the real-world changes that differentiate the production of the show between it's original continuous run and the second continuous run. (If Doctor Who were to air another 20 series would we still strive to have every one accounted for within one gargantuan article? ) I would however lend my support to a renaming of the article, even it if causes as much problems as it would solve as I imagine episode is the more widely used term. Eshlare (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Split apart - keeping the current name doesn't make sense for the new series; changing it doesn't make sense for the old series. I also think the article is far too long in its current state. Splitting would help a bit, make editing a bit quicker (editing the current article is quite slow), and also simplify the introduction. The fact that the standard episode time changed to 45 mins in the new series is rather lost considering it is so far down the article. I honestly wouldn't mind too much if the article name changed or not, because I think its length is a larger issue. JamminBen (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose move to "episodes", oppose split: I understand the issue with the serials name, but there are still more serials, in terms of length and numbers, than episodes. I also oppose a split as this is still the same show as the one that aired 51 years ago which was never actually cancelled. Sceptre (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not support name change or split: I back Alex totally for the reasons he explained. It's not two shows so, no splits, it's been constantly repeated here. Also "List of doctor who episodes" redirects to the article so changing its name it's not necessary. Karlitatv (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggestion - If people are concerned about one title not applying to both, then as someone suggested in the first section, why not go with 'serials and episodes' to cover both and redirect the other titles to that? 213.104.176.176 (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The main reason I'm against that title is as mentioned on WP:Article titles: that title is not concise. Removing either serials or episodes describes the article already, at least in part, I feel having both would be redundant for the first series, and only half apply to the later series. --KnightMiner (t&#124;c) 16:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not support split It's one show, splitting makes no sense whatsoever. 2602:306:CC00:CCDF:9C49:BBA7:AFD1:633E (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Paul.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sublists of Episodes
I've wondered before, why do we have two listings of Doctor Who episodes? We have the full episode listings (example here), and then we have this page's listings (example here). Many other TV series use the onlyinclude tag in their season articles.

For example, the episode listings in Haven (season 5) use {Episode list/sublist|List of Haven episodes ... }, and the List of Haven episodes uses {:Haven (season 5)}, just calling the main article's episode listing (minus the summaries, and using double curly brackets), instead of maintaining two separate episode listings. Curious as to why does Doctor Who not do this? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing episodes column
I was looking for an overview which serials are complete and which aren't and while the information is all there, it's tacked on to the "episodes" column, which didn't give me quite the overview I wanted. Because I think adding a separate unit of information to a column like that is not the right way to structure information, I set out to add a column for which episodes are missing (by splitting up the episodes column, so it would line up with the later seasons where there is no need for such a column). While this looked good on my screen, it didn't quite work for smaller screen sizes. Does anyone have any suggestions on this? My name is Jasper (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My advice: leave as is. You already experienced why adding more columns is not preferred. We do have a page dedicated to missing episodes: List of missing Doctor Who episodes.  20:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I was unable to find a list of complete serials either here or there (the information is there in both places, but in neither place it's very readable), which is what spawned my interest in changing this in the first place. I also think that as it stands the mentioning of which episodes are missing in these tables is close to useless - if so, should it be there at all? My name is Jasper (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Another option might to use a footnote or stylistic trick to mark which episodes are missing. The footnote would be the least intrusive, but also adding the least value. The stylistic trick could range from italics on the episode title, to a change in font color or even a change in the background color of the entire column. Both solution would need text to explain them somewhere, but this only costs vertical space, not horizontal space. My name is Jasper (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what's wrong the way it is - it seems perfectly straightforward to me. Etron81 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Average Viewers
With this edit, average viewers are allowed to be calculated (in this case for Series 8), but with this edit, average viewers are not allowed to be calculated (in this case for the Specials). Can we get some clarification here, please? Mostly from, given that he was the editor for both of the linked edits. Thanks. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CALC applies here. The second edit you link to mainly reverted a table issue, and I was wrong with regard to the average number.  15:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Mini-episodes
Currently, revived series mini-episodes such as "Time Crash", "Pond Life", "The Night of the Doctor", etc are listed among the television stories. However, they don't add to the story count. Should we set up a section for them in the "Other stories" category? I ask this mainly because other mini-episodes such as "Attack of the Graske" and "Death is the Only Answer" are counted there but not among the television stories.

--TARDIS2468 (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ye - I'd say 'anything not counted in the story count should go in other stories' - that way there is consistency. If needed, add other sections into Other stories. 94.15.139.117 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Mising home videos
Why are the mini episodes from the serise 7 DVD/blu ray mising as onley the ones from seris 5 and 6 are listed the ones that are mising are Clara and the tardis the rian goods and the infurarium this makes even lees sens as they are in clouded in the serise list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.76.31 (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

TV Movie numbering
The 1996 movie should be numbered story 156, not 158. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.8.93.205 (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for catching that. DonQuixote (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Night of the Doctor meets criteria for inclusion and should be listed
We should add "Night of the Doctor" (the Paul McGann minisode that preceded the 50th anniversary special) to this page. It was broadcast as Doctor Who on the BBC website and thus meets the criteria for inclusion. Also it is mentioned in a sentence at the end of the Eighth Doctor section so is clearly already accepted by this page as canon and worthy of mentioning. I suggest we add a section called "Online broadcasts" under the "Other stories" heading - as surely in the age of Netflix-exclusive shows and BBC3 moving to online only, online video streaming is a perfectly valid form of "broadcast"? Or are we taking the rather bizarre stance that audio streaming from a BBC website counts as a broadcast (as mentioned in the Criteria for Inclusion) but video streaming does not? Alexbowyer (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added to Other Stories. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Unintended consequences of transclusion
I've noticed that as a result of using "Ratings Guide" (Doctor Who News) as the reference for viewing and AI figures in the episode lists instead of the previous "A Brief History of Time Travel" ones, the individual series articles are losing references that readers/editors might have used for general referencing. In anticipation of their loss, and as an example I've put them as general references on the Season 16/Key To Time. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sublists of Episodes
A question I had, but was archived due to no answer, so I'm posting it here again... I've wondered before, why do we have two listings of Doctor Who episodes? We have the full episode listings (example here), and then we have this page's listings (example here). Many other TV series use the onlyinclude tag in their season articles.

For example, the episode listings in Haven (season 5) use {Episode list/sublist|List of Haven episodes ... }, and the List of Haven episodes uses {:Haven (season 5)}, just calling the main article's episode listing (minus the summaries, and using double curly brackets), instead of maintaining two separate episode listings. Curious as to why does Doctor Who not do this? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been wondering this too. Personally I think the use of season sublists would enhance the look of the page with the colour codes for each season, as well as the sublists having the benefit of listing an episode's ratings and AI, which the custom ones on the main serial list don't. --TARDIS2468 (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Per talk"? I'm sorry... I can't see anything remotely resembling a consensus, so let's not jump the gun. Both list have their own set of information, including references (which were broken). So let's talk first.  10:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Per talk page", you missed a word. There's nothing extra in the episodes on this page compared to the episodes on the season/series pages. I'm not seeing anything against it - there's less clutter, less listings to maintain, and there's extra information. If you wish for a consensus, I'd be interested in seeing your opposing view? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (Don't know why "page" is relevant.) There is too much information, so there is more clutter. Because the list is so long, we must trim the fat. That info is better suited for the individual series articles. The overhead in maintaining is very little. Visually, I find the colors distracting, and the columns are misaligned. This is already a featured list, so if it ain't broke...  10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If there is too much information, then how it this not automatically too much information on the individual articles? What are the colours distracting you from? And the columns can easily be realigned in each individual article. Also noted are TARDIS2468's views. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I per sanely prefer the subsists as it onley contines full length episods dividers by seris making it simpler to follow and it sued never have Benne undoun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.76.31 (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer using sublists too - they make editing quicker and easier as users only need to edit one list, and if colours are distracting and ratings are too much information - take that to every other episode list on Wikipedia, which uses sublists, colour-codes seasons/series, and provides and refs ratings. --TARDIS2468 (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I say it makes more sense to have all the information in one place, not only for ease of editing, but also for consistency with other show articles.
 * The colors really are not a problem, except in comparison with the ref and "AI" links when not colored white in the respective article, plus I prefer multiple colors, as it gives a bit more variety when viewing.
 * As for the rest of the information, it may not need to be here, but for consistency's sake (with other shows) I would leave it, as the alternatives would be removing it or awful markup to hide or remove it
 * --KnightMiner (t&#124;c) 02:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think thee subsists sued be introduced as most of the comments are supportive and the objections have been adresst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.76.31 (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Notifying WP:WHO.  20:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I like the look of the page with the sublists. However, if they are included, we would have to decide whether to include them for the classic series as well. If we did that, we would gain ratings information but lose alternate serial titles and missing episode information, unless those were added to the sublists. (Is that doable?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why that info is not included as standard on the subsists so I see no reason why it can not be added to them as the changers are implemented then — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.76.31 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that ther seams to be a consensus then whe will the changers be implemented — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.76.31 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 5 December 2014


 * " So now that there's almost all positive support, and you were the one to revert my edits, should I go redo those edits to incorporate sublists? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I find support very thin, as it only states preference and no arguments. Consistency (with other shows) is an argument. However, if it cannot be done consistently on this page, ie. with all specials and classic series formatted the same way, it should not be done at all. That is a deal-breaker for me. The consistency in presentation is a key factor in this page being a featured list. With that in mind, I can only agree if you show me a working sandbox version.  12:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I find support for keeping it as it is even thinner; in fact, I believe that you're the only one with an opposing view. I'm not entirely sure how you expect me to create a sandbox version for sublists, given that they'd require content from the season/series articles. For consistency, all that would be required is adding equal widths to the season/series tables, as I've actually recently done for a dozen or more shows without argument from other users. Given the fact that I see no other opposing views, the whole "Show me this, else it won't be done at all and I'll continue to revert your edits" sounds like a very own-y reason (though this may just be me). AlexTheWhovian (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to keep this list from dropping featured status, and that is well within reason. The article looks like a hodgepodge with all these mixed tables. And you don't have to make a sandbox of each series' articles; only of this page. I'm am not opposed per se, I just want it to be done properly; so let's focus on the 2005 series onward, including all specials and up to series 8. And if that goes well, worry about the classic series later. Again, I'm not ownish... I just don't want the article to look like a contruction site.  14:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted this at the wiki protect who Thule that it mint be relevant to this diction
 * Personally I belive that the includes of viwing figers and ai numbers in the episode list makes it easer to comper this info across multiple seris also it is simpler whith regards to minsodse as they are all in the other story's rather than the courant setup wher some like ps and night of the doctor which wher online and/red buton are in the episode list while dimensions in time Which was bro cast but is not genraley regarde as canon is in the other storeys so even if the subsists are not add then I think that onley full leth episodes be listed out Sid of the other story's it is also of not that night of the doctor only fetters the 8th and war doctors but not the 11th doctor who it is listed under in aney way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.76.31 (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this discussion related to the "transclusion" of episodes to list of.. page. Because this edit to Series 5 broke a load of references on what is (was) a Good Article. I undid but the restoration edit note countered with "...refs will be restored by a bot. This transclusion has been approved by an admin, Edokter..." and that we should wait for the final outcome. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also not happy with using colours in an attempt to jazz up the article - they aren't used to convey info (there's too many to identify each by colour) nor to navigate - that's what a TOC does. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * GraemeLeggett, we're not "jazzing" up the article at all. We're transcluding the tables from their respective series pages for ease of access, for extra information, and so that we don't have two lists of episodes to update and maintain. And the references that you state were broken were restored by a bot, as I said that they would be. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that making an edit - that does break something - in 'the sure and certain hope' that someone/something will fix it is the right attitude. I have no problem with transclusion, it's a question of making the edits properly. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So instead of having the refs and sources moved automatically (by a boy that's programmed to do exactly that), you prefer that they be done manually, resulting in exactly the same result? That makes no sense. The article's still good, the result is still the same, I believe you're trying to grasp at straws and argue a useless point for no reason. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Never rely on a bot. It may be down, or retired... It is little trouble moving the primary ref.  16:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * With regards to the classic series, the tables look out of whack. There is no need to specify every episode number in bold. Do we need to list the AI and ratings per episode, or can we average them out?  16:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of bold is generally deprecated for most things across Wikipedia (MOS:Bold), as an experiment I've replaced it with italics on Doctor_Who_(season_24). It seems easier on the eye without losing too much distinction between the Episode and the number following. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It remains too cramped. I was kind of afraid for this... some information transcluded from the series' page is simply too much for this list, while other infomration is lost (such as number of episodes). But if it is to be this way,let me see if I can simplify it a bit.  22:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the episodes line up across the columns, it is possible to eliminate repetition of "Ep 1" etc from the viewing figure and AI - see this edit to this edit to   Doctor Who (season 1) . GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Some feedback on the new tables. For the classic series, it might be helpful to add the episode count under the title. E.g. on Season 24, under Time and the Rani, include the text "4 episodes". The new layout doesn't make this entirely clear. You could then see the episode count in each serial without having to tally up the number of rows used for the AI scores.
 * Something that is now missing is when an episode is not the usual length; e.g. The Eleventh Hour in Series 5. For the classic series, e.g. story 133, the running time could go under the title, but this may not work in the revived series as each title only occupies one line.
 * I also think it is not clear enough which episodes in the revived series are part of a two or three episode story. Only the story code gives this away, e.g. 164a, 164b. JamminBen (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we could reinstate the first point you mentioned, given that this information is already in the season/series articles. As with the second point, since a template is used for episode listings, we can't merge rows (e.g. having a three-row-spanning column for the Utopia story arc. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Should the Contents Table even be used on this article? Given that everything there is already listed on the OVerview table, and is causes a good deal of whitespace. (Not even sure if it can be hidden, to be honest.) And now that we're transcluding the season/series articles, which contain the special episodes instead of having them separately, what do we do with the Specials table? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think a ToC is still required. One could either limit the ToC level (currently 3), or craft a custom ToC using one of the many templates for such things. Or put ToC on right hand side. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Where seasons have multiple doctors
One of the recent updates has put The Twin Dilemma, which is part of season 21, with the rest of the seasons as part of the fifth doctor section. As we all know it's a sixth doctor serial. is there anything we can do about this as it's going to happen again when you get to season 4? => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 10:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Phaps some consideration should be given to stop dividing the list by doctor if story's will be listed under the Wong doctor peticuley as with seris 4 tow 1st doctor story's will be in the Wong place and removing the doctor dividers will remove this problem and make the list more consistent with other tv shows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.76.31 (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Added Season/Series numbers to Doctor sections
I added the range of seasons/series to the section for each doctor. The end result is when viewing the TOC, the seasons for each doctor are listed. I often have a series/episode number, and want to look up the episode. I assume others have the same situation, and this makes finding the correct episode easier.

wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 03:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed this due to the fact that all of this information is already available in the Series Overview table - the seasons/series, the Doctors, and the years/dates. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree; headers should not duplicate primary information that is already there (especially in an article this big). It also broke a host of incoming section links.  08:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * After 2012/s 7 the episode code is missing. That used to be quite handy. At the moment, BBC Entertainment just aired "Nightmare in Silver" which BBC EPG calls "episode 12". That information should be contained in the article. It would be very useful if it could provide some sort of canonicalization. For episodes prior to 2012 it does that. The overview table does not do that, as it does only provide overview over the number of different series. Thanks.2001:A60:1675:2701:E97A:6664:D66D:B86D (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I recall this being talked about before. Check the archives, and you'll find your reason on why they're not included. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are production codes, and they stopped using them, or at least stopped publishing them after the 2012 series.  09:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As has been stated by people connected to the production team, production codes are no longer used because nobody uses them in the production team and they were really only there for the sake of it. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone has made a hell of a mess of this page.
Can we revert this page to how it was a few weeks back? The Twin Dilemma is now in the 5th Doctor section and all the canonical mini-episodes have been shunted to the Other Stories. This new set up is not very friendly to new fans who want to know what order the stories come in! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.42.93 (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to read this Talk Page, you'd find that this is currently in development. Come back when you've read it as being declared finished and you still don't like it. This isn't a TV Guide for new "fans", it's an encyclopedic listing. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. I'll be sticking with the last pre-transclusions revision until it's been fixed. The episode lists with "a" and "b" episodes instead of showing them as the single story that they are is a total disaster with far worse readability, especially for someone new to the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.53.174 (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Home videos mising from other story's
The exsitel sense from the seris 7 blu ray /DVD reuse are not men end with the ons from seris 5 and 6 DVD riser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.185.45 (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense. Home videos are in Other Stories. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not the ones from seris 7 spesifacley clar and the tardis and the rian goods and whil I understand why prqwuls are not included I do not understand why thes are not in the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.185.45 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 January 2015
 * Your lack of spelling makes this hard to understand... The miniepisodes are just that - miniepisodes, and not full episodes or serials. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What's going on with Christmas Specials?
Somebody has stuck the Christmas Specials in with various series. This wouldn't be a problem, but it is leading to several issues. I'm guessing whoever did it just used the DVDs as a guide because this is breaking away from how things actually worked out production wise. The ones in particular I'm noticing are The Next Doctor (which has been stuck in with the Specials, despite being in with Series 4 production wise) and The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe (which has been jammed in with the 2012/13 series despite having nothing to do with it from a behind the scenes perspective).

I'm just wanting to check what the reasoning was behind this. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No specials have been "stuck" with any series. This is how it's always been done on the season/series pages, and it's only now just being transcluded to this page, to have those tables on this page, direct from the season/series pages. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And what about the two I pointed out are in the wrong place? The Next Doctor isn't one of the specials, as contemporary sources will tell you, and The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe is independent from any series as its production code quite clearly shows. Ruffice98 (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Next Doctor" is one of those specials (given that it was included in the "Doctor Who: The Complete Specials" boxset, and why it's called 2008-2010 specials, not 2009-2010 specials - read this article). And what would you have us do with "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe"? The tables on this page don't actually exist on this page, they're being pulled from respective season/series pages. And on these pages, the Christmas Specials are always included as the first row, no matter if they belong to the series, as this has been standard practice here for years. Would you have us not include it in any listing? We can't add it to a table on this page, given that no tables exist on this page (transclusion).


 * As came up in another discussion a while back, the DVDs are not representative of official systems (specifically in that case when it came to story counting) so the decision was made that the serials page (this one) should follow the official system "as broadcast" and the DVDs page should follow the DVDs system. Planet of the Dead was advertised as the first of the specials, so should be the first of the specials (with The Next Doctor put in with Series 4, which also makes sense given that it was produced alongside it whereas the four specials were all produced together a year later). Personally, when it comes to The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe it should be separate just like the final Eleventh Doctor two specials are. The problem seems to be you are making an assumption and it is incorrect, you are assuming that because every other series has its Christmas Special included in it, this is some sort of "standard practice" which isn't actually the case, those specials are included in with those series as their production codes show. I'd also point you in the direction of The End of Time which most certainly is not included with the following series.


 * My personal view is that we should be following the official systems here, and DVDs should be left for the DVD page. Ruffice98 (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your arguments are poor. You forgot about the entire fact that they're called the 2008-2010 Specials by official name, hence that includes "The Next Doctor". And you're suggesting that we create an entire article, just to put one table in it to be transcluded here? Sorry, bud, learn a bit more about Wikipedia, because that won't happen. If it's not standard practice, look at the previous series' tables. Simply because there's no production codes now, doesn't mean the entire table system should be uprooted and not follow what's been done in the past. The End of Time is not included, because it's officially part of the Specials. As I said: poor arguments. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see your "official" source, because I've certainly never seen it and the article you are referencing doesn't give it either. The source I have quite clearly states Planet of the Dead is the first of the specials, the only thing that has shown any sign otherwise is the DVD release, but as I have mentioned that isn't "official" as per a previous discussion showing contradictions with another officially recognized system. Also my proposal doesn't require any new articles to be created, I don't know where you got that from. As I said, if you have a source saying otherwise please provide it, because I'm not seeing anything. On another note, if you really are only following the DVDs I would point out that "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" was originally excluded from the release and was only included later after complaints (and I'm certain the original announcements can be found if required). That's certainly rather damning evidence against your position. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

On the BBC webpages this old page lumps all the specials together from Christmas Invasion to End of Time, and includes Time Crash. So that's not much use. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait, so you're expecting me to provide an official source, even though you have no official source yourself, given that you stated that it's not official since your source contradicts the official system, which is what I'm arguing for? That makes no sense, and I'm also not required to give one. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Fine then, Doctor Who Magazine. Officially authorized by the BBC, at the time of broadcast and the lead up to it, it referred to the specials as such. I can get specific issues and page references if you'd like. There is absolutely no source for your statement. I think there is a major flaw if you can't provide anything and there is currently nothing on the article you keep referring to. Also, why are you not required to give one? There isn't a source for your statement at all. The page has been edited to make it like another article, without checking if the other article was correct first. Ruffice98 (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Tennant specials were part of Series 4 from a production standpoint, from Davies' laptop in Cardiff to post-production in Upper Boat. Going by production season for the specials seems to be the best idea. Sceptre (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In terms of production codes, yes. In terms of actual production, filming and such like it was divided into two, but the split happened between The Next Doctor and Planet of the Dead, about half a year if my memory serves me correctly (by the time filming had resumed every other episode had already gone out). Ruffice98 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but no source puts The Next Doctor in with the run of series 4 - Journey's end was called the finale. I don't think it's counted as either 'series 4' or 'the specials' officially - and I think the only reason the page put them together was so to avoid having 'special (2008)' next to 'specials (2009-10)' 213.104.176.176 (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This entire rearrangement has caused a lot of problems. By removing several headers, this means that many links have been broken. The colours are great (half-finished, mind) but I don't understand why specials and series' have been conjoined. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 16:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Because that's why way it's been done for years in the Season/Series pages - I don't believe we can exclude the series, since we're directly pulling the tables from the respective pages. Unless there is a way, anyone? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The reasoning behind the conjoining is rather simple, many of the specials were produced alongside the series they preceded. However, there are some exceptions to this which is where these complications arise. Especially during Davies' time on the show things were broken up by the episodes produced together. At first this was a special then the series that followed it all in the one block, but "the specials" created some issues, so the order was shifted around. The Next Doctor was attached to the end of the Series 4 filming block and the specials then followed six months later with their own separate filming block which is why a division exists. The problem here arises because BBC Worldwide wanted a DVD box set out in November so obviously couldn't include the episode that had yet to be broadcast, as a result it was delayed to the next DVD box set. This has led to some people assuming that The Next Doctor is "officially" part of the specials, when in reality there is nothing out there to confirm it, although in principle the "standard procedure" would lead to its inclusion in with Series 4. The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe is an even more complicated situation. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Combine the two season 21 lines in the table, using rowspan to still show both doctors that had episodes in that series
Dconman2 (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ❌. This creates accessability problems for screenreaders.  18:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This table does not fixes the problem as it credos the 6th doctor with the howl of the seson as it shows on my I pad — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎80.43.76.31 (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Could we add a note clarifying that there was only one Season 21, which contained serials featuring both the fifth and sixth doctors? It just seems like it could be confusing repeating all of the columns as if there were two separate seasons. Or in the doctor column have "Fifth and Sixth Doctor"? The way it is now seems unclear.

Dconman2 (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

How about this? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks like the best possible solution. Conveys everything quite correctly and in a relatively simple way. I like it. Lost on Belmont3200N (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dconman2. What's wrong with putting a note at the end of the season to state that "the Sixth Doctor made his first appearance in the final episode" or "the Second Doctor made his first appearance in the third story"? The way it is now just makes it looks like two separate seasons, and messes up the sortable aspect of the table. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 11:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Does the table even need to be sortable? I see no need nor use for it. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sortable tables can be very productive. They can show which series/season had the most episodes, stories, viewers... I see no use for having two rows for one season... Plus it doesn't make really make sense. The Sixth Doctor's first full season was Season 22. He isn't specific to Season 21. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 11:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever we doe for Season 21 in this respect, we will have to do for Season 4 as well... Etron81 (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be much simpler? Season 4 had 9 serials and should not be split into 7 and 2 as it's a season overview. The same with Season 21.

— RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 20:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)