Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 13

Season 4 and Season 21 should be separated to acknowledge the fact that they are shared by multiple Doctors
The entirety of season 4 is listed under the Second Doctor, however the first two episode of said season should be under the First Doctor, since the Second Doctor's tenure did not begin until episode three of this season. This article used to have "The Smugglers" and "The Tenth Planet" under the First Doctor listed as "Season 4", and the remainder of this season's episodes under the Second Doctor listed as "Season 4 Cont.". The article should be reverted back to this organizational structure because it is more accurate and makes the most sense since these first two episodes do belong under the First Doctor. The same problem exists with Season 21. The final episode of this season, "The Twin Dilemma", belongs under the Sixth Doctor and not as the final episode of the Fifth Doctor. I propose the same solution as before, to revert the article to using "Season 21" for the Fifth Doctor's episodes of this season and "Season 21 Cont." for the Sixth Doctor.

Please change this:

Second Doctor
The Second Doctor was portrayed by Patrick Troughton, whose serials were more action-oriented than those of his predecessor. Additionally, after The Highlanders, stories moved away from the purely historical ones that featured during William Hartnell's tenure; instead, any historical tales also included a science fiction element. Patrick Troughton retained the role until the last episode of The War Games when members of the Doctor's race, the Time Lords, put him on trial for breaking the laws of time and forced him to regenerate.

Season 4 (1966–67)
The Smugglers and The Tenth Planet were the last serials to star the First Doctor, his regeneration to the Second occurring in the latter. Peter Bryant joined as associate producer for The Faceless Ones, and replaced Gerry Davis as script editor for the last four episodes of The Evil of the Daleks.

To this:

Second Doctor
The Second Doctor was portrayed by Patrick Troughton, whose serials were more action-oriented than those of his predecessor. Additionally, after The Highlanders, stories moved away from the purely historical ones that featured during William Hartnell's tenure; instead, any historical tales also included a science fiction element. Patrick Troughton retained the role until the last episode of The War Games when members of the Doctor's race, the Time Lords, put him on trial for breaking the laws of time and forced him to regenerate.

Season 4 Cont. (1966–67)
AND

Please change this:

Season 21 (1984)
Episodes were broadcast twice weekly on Thursday and Friday evenings, with Resurrection of the Daleks broadcast on two consecutive Wednesday nights. The Caves of Androzani saw the regeneration of the Fifth Doctor, and the season finale The Twin Dilemma was the first story of the Sixth Doctor.

Sixth Doctor
The Sixth Doctor was portrayed by Colin Baker.

To this:

Sixth Doctor
The Sixth Doctor was portrayed by Colin Baker.

Season 21 Cont. (1984)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Given the fact that you don't seem to know how headers work, and you've just cluttered this entire page, this cannot be done. The tables are PULLED(/transcluded) from the season pages. That's the only place the table exists. You can't pull part of a table, then pull another part of a table. This has been talked about before. It's not being done. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

While I will admit that I'm not too adept at editing Wikipedia, I do understand that the tables are being pulled from their season pages. However I do not understand why it is impossible to just replace the tables with ones like those that I have just shown. Clearly the article is firstly sorted by Doctor and then secondly sorted by season, so it only stands to reason that the episodes be put under the appropriate Doctor, and not confusingly sorted so that the average reader would assume that the entirety of season 4 starred the Second Doctor, for instance. Surely the accuracy and organizational structure of the actual article should come before the unseen formatting. Additionally, it is not like the tables on the season pages are going to be revised any time soon, or ever, since these episodes have long since aired, and it would not be too much of a hassle to revise one additional table in the event a missing episode is found. Also I apologize for cluttering up this page; that was not my intent. I posted a request earlier that only consisted of that first paragraph of this request, and it got shut down because I was not clear enough in my proposal. I posted all this clutter to ensure that I was as clear as possible so as not to repeat my mistake. Though it is probably plainly obvious, I am new at editing Wikipedia, so I do not yet understand all the correct procedures. I have however been using this article for a long time as a reference, and I much prefer the way it was previously organized where seasons 4 and 21 where split up because their division among the Doctors. Aisen14 (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC) I support this change phase the best way would be to make the changers in the the seson 4 and 21 aticals them selves88.107.185.45 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The colour scheme and the reference links
Is there anything that can be done so that the refs in the "UK viewers (million)" and "AI" or is it "Al" columns can be seen - several of the colours used make them hard if not impossible to see. Also can some explanation be added as to what "AI" or "Al" means. If there is an explanation in the article then my apologies but I couldn't find it. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, unless someone is willing to go through every single season and change the color manually (although I'm not sure if you can do that for links). AI means Appreciation Index – This is the general percentage of how well received the episode was. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 23:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks RR. I am sure some/most UK readers are used to that term but the rest of us aren't. I have added a brief note and link at the top of the season one table. Feel free to change it as you see fit but I would suggest that closer to the table where it is first used is better than higher up where, by the time a reader has scrolled through the "Overview" table they will have forgotten about it. I would note that not all of the colours would need to be changed just the ones where the ref can't be seen. But I sure do understand the difficulties involved. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Colour are picked to conform to WP:COLOR, often matching the marketing material of the particular season or series. Once marketing material is released, and a colour is picked based on it, there needs to be a very good reason to change it. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Individual episode names
An editor put back the individual episode names into Season 2 feeling this was information that was lost. The individual episode names were in the article when it gained Featured List status. And as I understand it, for the early years of DW, the story names are an 'invention' to group the episodes together. Is the removal of this information from the individual seasons important, and separately is the removal of them from this list important?GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The induvidual epiosde names should be preserved somehow. It is just a matter of how to work them into the title column. Not all season have individual episode names though. Let me see what I can do.  15:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * From day to day the usefulness of this page varies from nearly perfect to practically useless. The following information is vital and needs to be preserved: story names for all serials, individual episode titles for those serials that have them, and which episodes are lost from the BBC archives.  Removing this information dramatically diminishes the value of this page and should be considered vandalism. On Friday this page was a total bloody shambles; yesterday I was unable to identify anything missing; today information on the lost episodes is nowhere to be found.  Seriously, let's get it together.  Gwythinn (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel the the individual episode names of the first few seasons is vital. The overarching serial titles were introduced much later. I'm happy with compromise with the |current edit (with the serial and individual titles in the one row & column). The second point of the missing episode information I feel is also important enough to include in this page - I feel it is probably more important information than viewing figures. Maybe just a (missing) next to the episode or serial title? Or maybe transclude the missing episode summary from the season pages as well as the table? Dresken (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the significance is of this information. This page lists all the episodes, and that is what it does. Each season article has a separate section dedicated to the missing episodes, and each season section in this list has a top link pointing to the season article. I don't think it is wise to want too much information cramped into one page. You run the risk of duplicating the seaon pages, which is rather pointless. Some information needs to be filtered in order to keep this list usefull and managable.  10:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - I feel the fact that an episode does not exist any more is extremely significant (I would even argue it is 2nd only to the title) to place in any summary/list of episode information. Dresken (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a feature of the transclusion. If you put more information into the series article, then it appears in this article "as if by magic". If you want to cut information from this article, then you have to cut it from the series article. (and vice versa). If the requirements of this list and the articles shift - and it could be as simple as the use of referencing in the articles, then we could get into a tug of war. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I too think that the missing episodes are essential information for this page. Or, at least a way to list serials that have missing episodes differently.19:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaZam (talk • contribs)

Whether an episode is mising or not is vitel and should be includ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.185.45 (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of the comments so far, I read 5 people (including me) make comment on including missing episode information on this page, 4 of those strongly support; and 1 slightly disagreed as they are not sure of the value in the information and are validly concerned about page clutter. At this stage I feel this shows strong support to include the information. As it was previously available on this page, I feel we should add it back sooner than wait for more input. I will have a go at including it in a less obtrusive fashion. If the discussion goes the other way we can deal with it then. Thank you everyone for your input so far Dresken (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can hardly call this consensus... Just a few comment consisting of "they should be there", but none explain why. As such, the information is simply duplicating List of missing Doctor Who episodes (and itself on the season pages). So I am removing it for now until there is a better way to indicate missing episodes without messing up the tables.  10:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is something being removed - therefore consensus is required for its removal (not its reinstantiation). Dresken (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am happy for improvements on the presentation. I gave a good effort for making it as presentable as I could, but I do I wish it could be presented better, but I am not entirely sure how at the moment. The missing episode information is important to include in this summary, as to indicate that the item in the list does not exist at the time when it is listed. This whole page is a duplication of information, because it is a summary of other information - your reason for its removal is also an argument for the deletion of any of the information in the table. Dresken (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are now edit warring and I advice you to stop. I said I would look for a solution for the presentation. untill then, do not reinstate.  11:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly I would like to commend you on actually taking steps to improve the presentation of this information rather than simply removing this time. However I would recommend you should heed your own words said here - you were running your own edit war rather than participating to find a solution which made you appear antagonistic to someone else trying their best - then just tried to point the finger at me. There are several of Wikipedia suggestions that recommend against the behaviour you were displaying here (for example WP:ROWN, WP:DRNC, WP:BRD-NOT). Also your previous comments did not indicate you were actively looking for a solution - it actually sounded more like an excuse to get others point of view forgotten - either way it is not recommended to revert if the information just needs improving. I say all this so you hopefully take it on board for next time you come across someone trying to make good faith edits to improve an article and behave better towards them. Ultimately thank you for moving towards a compromise - its better than the information not being present at all but I would like to hear others thoughts Dresken (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Edokter wasn't edit warring, given that it was he who was reverting it to WP:STATUSQUO. And admins normally aren't prone to edit-warring behaviour. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Admins just think that rules don't apply to them. Don't let yourself be bullied Dresken.  They were removed without consultation originally with no reason whatsoever.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.176.176 (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Dresken added the info without consensus - a couple of people saying Yes without why they're saying it is not consensus. Edokter reverted to WP:STATUSQUO. Edokter removed them so that a method could be devised to keep the styling correct and uncluttered. And learn how to discuss - sign your posts. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "status quo" - don't make me laugh! The "Status quo" would be to have it since they have been in for litterally years.  Where's the consensus to remove them?  An admin who thinks he owns all Doctor Who articles is not consensus.  94.9.211.86 (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your immature attitude and false accusations is what gives IP editors a bad rep. Come back when you learn how to grow up. Nothing has been removed. The information is still there. Each † signifies a lost episode, and an explanation for the † is at the bottom of each table. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This edit by TARDIS 2468 removed the individual titles from Season 1 article. This (immediately following) edit by Dresken restored them. Then AlexTheWhovian removed them again. The first could be considered the B in WP:BRD to which Dresken disagreed (R). Which is how we got to Discuss. And I think they should stay in the Season 1 article, if that is a problem for this list because the page is transcluded to this article, then it is relying on transclusion that is the problem, not the content on the Season 1 article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The current state of this article with the first Doctor episodes tagged with a dagger if they are missing is an excellent convention, IMO. In the second Doctor's era, when individual titles did not exist, listing the numbers of the missing episodes after the serial title is a good alternative given that without episode titles, using the dagger after the serial name would be a significant loss of information.  This is demonstrated on The Savages, where we currently communicate that SOME episodes are missing, but not WHICH episodes are missing.  Is it possible to use the second Doctor convention on this one first Doctor serial, since it isn't compatible with the convention we're using in the rest of the first Doctor's era?  If not, I think losing the missing episode info on *one* serial is an acceptable loss in exchange for having it on the rest.

That said, I agree with the anonymous user above -- status quo on this article is how it was in December before the recent flurry of editing began; consequently Edoktor's enforcement of the removal of missing episode information represents a *departure* from the status quo, not a return to it. Gwythinn (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've implemented a simple solution to this issue Gwythinn. Tell me what you think. =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 21:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I like that a lot. Thanks for a clean and efficient solution.  Gwythinn (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * in my opinion the method for presenting mising episode infomation shuod be consistent thruout the artical and I prefer how this infomation is presented in seson 4 to 6 88.107.185.45 (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong years
Several of the airdates between 30Dec1967 and 2Mar1968 have the wrong year listed. (e.g. Jan67 follows Dec67) 50.125.52.193 (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Should be fixed now.  19:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the episodes (A Bargain of Necessity) of the Reign of Terror serial in Season 1 is listed as having aired in 1984 instead of 1964.208.196.60.50 (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Taras Hnatyshyn
 * Fixed. -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Welfare State   ‖ 22:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The bit on record holding length
Is prominent in the lede "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, Smallville,[2] aired 218 episodes."

I see from this pages archives that this was discussed briefly in 2011. The reliability of the source was questioned then as it was seen as speculative and didn't reference Guinness directly. I thought to try the Guinness World Records website to see if it could confirm the claim but finding a record listed but although Smallville does come up in a search it isn't in that context. Anyone aware of a direct statement by GWR about the consecutive episodes record?

Secondly, would any comparison with other long running programmes be better as a footnote? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Deleted. Like you said, the source was mere speculation and the comparison is irrelevant anyway. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 11:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Highest number of consecutive episodes" - the current total of 813 episodes includes the classic series and the new series. I think a fair comparison would be to other shows that have had extended breaks or have been revived many years after the original series, e.g. Battlestar Galactica. Interestingly, the original series and the 2004 series of BG have separate articles and episode lists, despite sharing the same show name. I don't see an overall episode count either. We would need to decide if a total episode count includes all episodes, or if it should be split between the classic and new series, before drawing any comparisons. JamminBen (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Total episode counts refer to both the classic and new series'. As the new series is just a continuation, it would be weird to separate the two. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 00:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Story's under the Wong doctor
Removed twin delema the smugglers and the tenth planet as they wher under the Wong doctor pas add them to the correct doctor92.7.161.22 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There may be a way of doing this under the current setup for the articles. a seed of an idea has been running through my head for a couple of weeks.  What we need to do is to discuss a solution (as has been done above) before we remove content from the articles though.  =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 20:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that subsists shoud be divided in the individual articals according two doctor for season 4 and 21and then puld sepretly in two this artical I'm keen to fikse this artical as it is rely a noting whe glancing throu the list 92.7.161.22 (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that there's a more elegant solution than that. => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 21:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who miscellaneous serials
I'd like to suggest a new page which I am developing here, which separates the original series and its accompanying "special" broadcasts, such as radio broadcasts. I think this would neaten up the page a bit and the "other stories" section does not convey the purpose of the article in my opinion. Any feedback is welcomed. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 23:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Quite well agree with this. This page is for Doctor Who serials and episodes, and the Other Stories do not fit in either of these categories. Good work! AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What article name do you think will be suitable for mainspace, "miscellaneous" is not very encyclopaedic. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What about using the current section title for the new article name like "Other Doctor Who stories", "List of other Doctor Who stories", or "List of Doctor Whos other stories"? --KnightMiner' (t&#124;c) 22:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My vote lies with "List of other Doctor Who stories". AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But if you were not already that aware of the programme and came to the article title cold, you might think "other to what?". Article titles can be more descriptive. Taking out the radio stuff could give List of non-serial Doctor Who TV stories?? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And what would one do with the radio stories? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The radio stories could have their own article - I think there is a significant number of these to warrant a separate article. For the TV broadcasts, the intro para describes these as "special episodes". This is going off-topic, but why do some specials appear here - e.g. "Time Crash" - and others appear in the series lists, e.g. the Christmas specials, the 2009-10 specials, and the 50th anniversary special? Why does "The Christmas Invasion" have a story number but "Time Crash" does not? Are they not both specials? I think these are mainly radio broadcasts and "special" episodes. Is there another way to describe the "other" episodes than as "specials"? JamminBen (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly because The Christmas Invasion is an actual episode, but Time Crash is a several-minutes special minisode. And the episodes you have listed actually provide continuity to the show and are marketed as such. Minisodes do not. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Whatever we decide, I think we need a major clean up of the bottom half of the serials article. If the radio stories were to have their own article (I assume webcasts would go there, too), we could keep the one-off episodes like "Space" and "Time", and get rid of the "video games" section as it only contains The Adventure Games which already has it's own article. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 12:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. It might be useful to see another version of your work in progress page with those changes made. It might also give reason to revisit a previous discussion that didn't gain consensus last time around - a possible new name for "List of Doctor Who serials". If radio stories were to be split, "serials" would not be specific enough for the main article. "List of Doctor Who TV episodes" and "List of Doctor Who radio episodes" might then be needed. JamminBen (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Something like this? We could also either do a list of "special" episodes, or keep these with the list of serials under "other stories" and get rid of the video games section perhaps. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 16:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It gets my vote. Be interested to hear what others think. JamminBen (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll make the move(s) if everyone's up for it. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 00:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the other stories moving to their own article as well. This page should just be for main episodes and serials; this section causes clutter, in my opinion. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

✅ – List of special Doctor Who episodes, List of Doctor Who radio stories. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 22:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Splitting of seasons: a (workable) solution
The following only requires minor changes to the main list and the two transcluded pages. tell me what you think

Shall I include it (and do the other one)? => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 21:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Yes it gets my vote 92.7.161.22 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll do better and have used a new feature called Labeled Section Transclusion. That means not having to use parser functions in article space.  19:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I knew that there had to be an elegant solution. While my solution wasn't entirely brute force it was a touch on the ugly side. =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 20:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What's happened with the First / Second Doctor sections?
Just noticed that the TOC has a few new sections at the top; on further investigation it looks like a couple of season articles have popped into the episode list. I couldn't see which edit caused this. Perhaps caused by edits to the season pages? Any ideas? JamminBen (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe it was caused by 's edits to Doctor Who (season 4). However, it's back to normal now.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a new toy, but it has bugs, which measn I can't transclude a section twice. I'll keep working on it.  19:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. I messed up the table close.  19:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) JamminBen (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Writer/Director columns for Series 7 & 8
Can I ask why the Writer column is so much longer than the Director one? It's not the most serious of questions to ask but it's been bugging me for a while now. For all the other series', the columns are the same. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 19:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We had to choose a column to extend because the production code is no longer there, and the writers column often contained two names, while the director has always one.  19:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it look better if you changed both of the columns to 16% instead of them being 14% and 18%, and have the writers on separate lines? Just something to consider. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 14:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't want to force separate lines in a table cell for screens that don't need it.  15:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Aren't most of them on separate lines anyway? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 16:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Not on my screen, they fit just about perfectly (except in the case of "Time Heist"). --KnightMiner (t/c) 16:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * RachelRice, your screen isn't the only screen to go by. Many have thinner screens, many have wider screens. Wikipedia is for everyone. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no co-writers in Series 7 and Series 7b, so why has the column been widened so much if it doesn't need to be? It only needs to be done to Series 8 in that case. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 02:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To keep the columns of tables Series 7, 8 and 9 consistent with each other. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So that's what this is about. Consistency. No worries then, just thought it looked a bit odd compared to the other seasons. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 14:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

What happened to 'other stories'
Why were the 'other stories' deleted? - shouldn't there be some mention of the things like CIN specials, infite quest, dreamland somewhere? 213.104.176.176 (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that this is what you're looking for: List of special Doctor Who episodes. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2015
151.227.37.193 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You have not made a request you have only added a template. If you can give us an idea of what you would like to have changed in the article that would help. Otherwise I would suggest that this whole thing be removed so that it no longer takes up space on this talk page. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Viewers
I've always wondered - with other television series, viewers are always included after the air date. This is due to the the way it's set out in Template:Episode list - there's the OriginalAirDate variable, then the specifically-used Viewers variable after it.. However, Doctor Who places the viewers before the air date, so the season/series tables use the Aux2 variable, which should be for content that a specific variable doesn't exist for (like Aux3's use for AI). Is there any solid reasoning behind this? Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 07:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose it was just to match the way it was before we started using the template. The air date has always been at the end, so I suppose people felt like they had to go by this "rule" instead of complying with the template itself. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 10:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

David Tennant Specials heading
Colloquially, the 4 specials of the 10th Doctor are known as Series 4b. Thoughts on adding this somewhere in the heading for that section? Thor214 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Colloquially, but not officially. They're referred to here as they are officially, as the 2008–2010 specials. (Personally, I've never seen the specials referred to as Series 4B.) Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  18:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Colloquially or other wise I have never seen them referred to as this either. This may, or may not, be some sort of reference to The Discontinuity Guide. If significant coverage can be found in secondary sources it might merit a brief mention in the body of the article but it has no business being a part of a section header. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

&, and, or two lines?
Because there seems to some sort of disagreement on this article when there is more than one person writing a story. Some seasons use (name) & (name), others use (name) and (name) and a select few simply have two lines; the first writer on the top and the second on the bottom. Can we come to some agreement as to which one to use on this article? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 22:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever is used in the episode. There is a reason for "and" and "&" being used, and this is to do with groups. For example, "Bob & Jack and James" indicates that Bob and Jack worked as a group on that particular episode, and James helped, but not as part of a group. If two lines are used in the episode, they should not be on two lines in the article - "and" should be used over "&" to combine them. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  22:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So, '&' means these two writers worked together, and 'and' means the latter only helped? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 23:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, yes. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  01:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So, how do we know that Steven Moffat only helped Jamie Mathieson write "The Girl Who Died" when it hasn't aired yet? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 03:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * While I don't have the answer to which way it goes, the information as to whether he helped or worked actively with the other writer isn't going to be explained in the episode itself, it will be explained in interviews with the writers or articles relating to the episode so if it can be sourced properly then that information can be obtained before or after broadcast in theory (depending on when the information is given out, if it ever is). Ruffice98 (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The & / and distinction comes from WGA screenwriting credit system doesn't it. Which doesn't necessarily have any bearing on how the BBC or reliable sources might choose to write it. And also overlooks the role of scripteditor/producer in rewrites. Might as well use "and" and the actual writing proportions/process can be in the body of the article on the episode. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Filling in Mini-Series
Can someone please fill in the miniseries information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackery01 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * These already exist, and can found at List of special Doctor Who episodes. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  02:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Width of Columns
As you know, the width of certain columns in the Series 7, 8 and 9 tables have been altered and differ from the other series/seasons due to the lack of a "Production code" column. However - maybe it's just me - the "Original air date" column looks odd, out of place, and too big. I would like to ask if anyone can consider shrinking the width of these "Original air date" columns (because it's obvious that the dates in the column don't need all of that space) and allowing space for other information to "breath" on certain rows. For Series 7, episodes like "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" and "Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS" have the potential to sit on one line each if the "Original air date" and "Written by" columns were shortened. This would make the table more aesthetically pleasing and allow it to fit in with the other series up to that point. It would look neater. The same goes for Series 8. I know people's computer monitors are different but, from what I've seen, the majority of series/seasons tables have all of their information on one line, allowing it to look more ordered. So yeah, could someone please shrink the widths of the "Original air date" columns in the Series 7, 8 and 9 tables to allow other information in those tables to "breath" and have more room. Sorry about the long-winded message, I just wanted to get my point across. 86.173.88.116 (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the air date column is fine, it's the fact that the writer and director columns are uneven which makes the table look odd. I think it's just an OCD-type situation that every single table must conform with each other to be "correct" (though this isn't a rule). There's no reason why we must have a stable column width in each table, but when I brought it up before I was outnumbered, so. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 15:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - to be honest it is a rather OCD-type issue. Although I still think the air date columns are too wide for the information they are accommodating. Space which could be benefited elsewhere. 86.173.88.116 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"Series 8 average viewer" query
I was reading an article on another website about the success of the show and as part of it BBC Worldwide quoted the show's average consolidated figures as 7.40 million over that period of time, but the comments section was filled with people saying those figures were not correct and wondering what was going on before reaching the conclusion that somebody at BBC Worldwide had just searched the show up on Wikipedia and quoted an incorrect figure due to an error on the article. I'm going to correct it to the correct average, but if possible could somebody please explain why the figure is as it currently is? As far as I can see it should be 7.26 million, not 7.40 million. This really does show the importance of ensuring all our information is correct because there are some people out there who are too lazy to check especially if errors are making it into official press releases possibly because of us. Ruffice98 (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Why would a BBC employee use Wikipedia rather than contacting another part of the BBC. Isn't it more likely their value was either incorrectly supplied or - as is often the case in statisticas - a result of a difference in calculation methology? Eg if you add in the Christmas episode, the average is 7.34. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no idea, this was just one suggestion as to where the figure went wrong but it did expose a flaw in this article at the very least, that's why I wanted to know where the figure came from. Ruffice98 (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Found it, an editor called AlexTheWhovian made the change based on this source:

http://www.cultbox.co.uk/news/ratings/doctor-who-ratings-season-8-averages-7-4m-viewers-each-week

It doesn't match any of the other figures quoted, and certainly isn't accurate enough to make it "7.40" million. So it seems this was a rounded BBC figure that somebody has put in even though it doesn't match up elsewhere. Ruffice98 (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits concerning order of columns
I've recently implemented several changes concerning the order of columns in the episode tables from the television movie onward. Last month, I asked why we don't use the "viewers" parameters that's available in the Episode list template (here), and decided that it should be implemented as such (plus a few other minor edits to the Supplementary Episode tables and the use of Episode table). This places the minor information (Production Code, Viewers, AI) at the end of the table (much like at List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials), and keeping the "Written by" columns the same width between the tables that use Production Codes and those that don't, while actually using the available parameters in Episode list that are meant for such use. I plan to update the classic seasons as well - if there are any opposing opinions, I'd be interested in hearing them. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 03:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Would help if you linked to those edits so we can see the change "at a glance". GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly! For example - For a page with Production Codes (Series 2): Before / After (diff). For a page without Production Codes (Series 7): Before / After (diff). Overall: Before / After. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  10:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

These changes making the episode lists for individual series look a mess due to a very long story column and therefore the previous template is better.79.153.68.192 (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a different edit that doesn't exactly pertain to this discussion. As I've already mentioned, it is testing a new implementation. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  15:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why, but it looks a little weird having the code, viewership and AI columns cramped on the end. I suppose I just need to get used to it. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 15:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, it's probably because we're used to using the auxiliary variables instead of the ones we're meant to. Now it conforms to the template itself (much like similar articles, e.g. List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials). Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  15:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Putting missing-episode counts in season summaries - good idea or bad?
reverted my recent edit which added a missing-episode count to the season summary, with the comment that "That information already features in the season's individual sections"

The same can be said for the first- and last-episode date and the number of serials in a season, and nobody is recommending that this information be removed.

'''I think the missing-episode/incomplete-serial-count information is important to have in a summary. What do other editors think?'''

davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  00:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally would approve of such content being added. It is detrimental to the seasons in question, and removes the need to visit each season article individually to find out how many episodes are missing. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  02:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it seriously affects the season summary in the list. That particular edit broke the column sorting anyway. As to missing episodes, there's a complete [Featured] article on that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The summary isn't for that though. As said above, missing episodes have their own entire article, and it's not important because it's not telling us which serials are missing, it's just telling us how many are missing, which IMO isn't needed. If people want to know which episodes are missing, then they can use the article dedicated to missing episodes. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 09:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out that my edit broke column-sorting. That is important and it will need to be addressed somehow.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  12:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Average AI in the summary table?
I feel like, so long as we're designating individual AIs useful enough information to put down for individual episodes, it might be more useful to put them in the general-info table at the top of the page, since folks might be more interested in "how was Season 12 generally received" than "what did people think of 'Ark of Space episode 2'?"

Also, I feel like putting the premiere and finale ratings up there is kinda pointless: they already exist elsewhere on the page, for one thing, and unlike premiere and end dates they don't necessarily provide vital context when lined up, considering that--regeneration episodes aside--classic Who didn't really consider premieres and finales any more or less an "event" than any other episode. Sure, the last serial was often longer than the others, but the serial itself was the event, rather than "Seeds of Doom episode 6" or whatever. --137.140.162.81 (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And how do we calculate average AI's for seasons that contain episode that didn't have AI's calculated? Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  16:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 Christmas Special
Why is the 2015 Christmas Special listed on its own? Christmas Specials are listed as part of the the Series it precedes, therefore it should be listed under Series 10. 90.192.195.45 (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's not enough information on Series 10 to put it under there yet. The Christmas Special has been listed on its own like last years and the years before, and will be merged with Series 10 when there's more info. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  13:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, although the heading shouldn't be "2015 Christmas Special", it should be "Christmas Special (2015)". 90.192.195.45 (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Years in brackets don't get added until the episode itself has aired, as per WP:TVUPCOMING. Noted that the year is still included, given that that's what the BBC is currently calling it. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  14:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request
The colour of Series 9 in the Series Overview needs to be changed to what it was before, as Colours should not be changed to match DVDs, they should only be changed if there's contrast problems. 90.192.195.45 (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The colour is changed to the DVD colour, and only then adjusted if there's contrast issues. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  14:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Colors
I am this close to removing all colors alltogether. This bickering about DVD covers is non-sensical. At the same time, most of them fail even WCAG AA complience. We managed ten years as a featured list without them. Why are they here again? 15:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, they all pass WCAG 2 AAA Compliancy, which is why none of them are tagged under Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  15:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You also need to account for the links present in the headers, which are completely invisible.  15:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've raised this concern at Help talk:Cite errors. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  16:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just spotted this. Answered at Help talk:Cite errors. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you've done or if it's a mistake, but this new ref scheme doesn't look very good at all. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 19:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd support the removal of all instances of setting a colour trim on infobox/episode table across the board, but it would be simpler for the project to accept when the situation does occur that the DVD colours can clash with the wikipedia style and in those cases just use the default/grey. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It would also simplify the underlying template code, which now needs this bolted on function to control the colour/combo of the reference links - and as a result creates a (IMO jarring) little white box below the link. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you want to remove the colours to the point where we get the sporadic season/series with colour, and the rest as the default grey? I disagree with this. The references are used in every season and series table, so perhaps they're not needed there at all, and can just be added to a "See more" section at the bottom of each page (or this page). I see no need to remove the colours. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline is for inline citations against that which it supports. While the "rule" about "ignoring all rules" applies, I think that stripping the tables of the references just to be consistent with colour is getting the balance wrong. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy with the colours but the recent addition of the white boxes around the references looks awful. Don't know if it's just on my screen but it's never been like that before. It looks really messy in my opinion.86.173.91.133 (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See my post of 18:31, 13 September 2015 above. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To the IP user, this is a fix for every Wikipedia article that uses Episode table, not just this one. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  23:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, sorry. I still stand by my point though.86.173.91.133 (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing to be sorry about, it's a hack to fix a problem with the normal un-followed and followed link colours being unreadable against certain background colours. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Barely a hack, definitely a solid fix. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  20:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request (Series 9 Episode Table)
There's a formatting issue with the Series 9 episode table. The info for Episode 2 is shifted over one cell, with the last one hanging outside the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FCSchadenfreude (talk • contribs) 04:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to be fixed.  11:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Mini Episodes
What happened to the mini episodes like Born Again and Children in Need... I kind of need them for the list. Also, I think Night of the Doctor should be listed as it was Paul McGann's regeneration episode — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theexploringgamer (talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This comes up again and again... List of special Doctor Who episodes. It's also at the bottom of this article under "See also". Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  16:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Ratings mismatch
The table showing averages for each season simply doesn't match the episode ratings for each season. There doesn't seem to be any citation for it, so I can only assume it's SUPPOSED to be calculated from those figures (as they DO have a citation).

So, for example, series 1, 13 episodes, listed as 10.81 7.97 8.86 7.63 7.98 8.63 8.01 8.06 7.11 6.86 7.68 6.81 6.91 Total is 103.32 Mean is 7.95 The table supposedly showing average is Series 1 	Ninth Doctor 	10 	13 	26 March 2005 	18 June 2005 	10.81 	6.91 	7.31 Where 7.31 is a LONG way off the mean. It is also not the median or mode, although those would be odd averages to use anyway.

Does this count as original (bad) research and need to be deleted, or is it a reasonable collation of genuinely cited info and just needs to be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.31.43 (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be that the calculations for the series average should be contained in the notes section, like I did here: Last_Tango_in_Halifax Eshlare (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If uncited, then it can be removed (though tagging for a cite might 'provoke' a cite, and is less contentious). You could also add that the figure is not any known arithemetical average of the (cited) individual episodes ratings. Have you checked other series? I just calculated The 10th Doctor's first series and that works out to about 7.7 if you leave out Christmas Invasion, 7.8 something with it. Table in the article has 7.64. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Column Widths (S7, Specials, S8 and S9)
The columns for "UK Viewers" and "AI" in the tables for Series 7, the 2013 Specials, Series 8 and Series 9 appear unnecessarily wide for the little information they contain. I know some of the columns widths had to be changed due to a lack of "Production Code" column post-2011, but surely this extra space could be used more effectively elsewhere (such as extending the widths of the writers column)? This would make more practical use of the space in my opinion - as the episodes that have been co-written have the writers names crammed into one small space and are often spread over two lines. I know it won't make a difference for mobile users, but for the majority of readers with a computer screen, the differences would be noticeable. 109.151.161.238 (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that the details of the writers and its column hasn't been changed between the series, the column widths should stay the same for uniformity. Changing the width of a column early in the table will set off the alignment between the rest of the columns, and the episode tables for previous series. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The co-writing credits in series 8 and 9 stand out from series 1-7 - very few episodes prior to series 8 had co-writers. However, I think you'd need a lot of extra space to get some of the co-writing credits in series 8 and 9 to fit on one line. JamminBen (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Trial of a Time Lord: 4 serials?
In the table in the overview section it says that Season 23 contains 4 serials - that should say 1 serial right? Although does essentially consist of 4 different stories it is still counted as 1 serial. You just need to put a note alongside it to explain it. 37.203.157.196 (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The series overview is correct. The season may have an umbrella title to wrap its whole season up, with the same plot arc throughout the season, but it is and always has been categorized into four serials. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  23:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the separate page for Trial of a Time Lord it says that it's a single 14 part serial, but I'll take your word for it. 37.203.144.64 (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It also states that it consisted of four adventures. If you take the time to read the info in The Trial of a Time Lord you will see that there were different production blocks for each segment. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And on the individual serial pages, it states "The Mysterious Planet is the first serial of the 23rd season", "Mindwarp is the second serial of the 23rd season", etc. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  15:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So that means that the page for Trial of a Time Lord is incorrect. 37.203.144.64 (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's correct. Regarding the comments that you deleted (which is frowned upon in an active discussion), the story number remains at 143 for the season, but it still consists of four serials. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It says on the Trial of a Time Lord page that it is a 14 part serial, but on other pages it says that it actually consists of 4 serials. You can't have both. 37.203.144.64 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request
The Series 9 stories number in the Series Overview needs to be changed from 8 to 7 as "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" are a two-parter. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Last airing of TV Movie
I reckon that the TV movie should have a 'Last Airing date' put in, but other editor believe it should say N/A. I am trying to dicuss for an agreement.Theoosmond (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Movie articles do not required a "last aired" date, no matter whether they're a television-released or cinema-released movie, and hence the entry for the Eighth Doctor movie does not required such an entry either. No matter the type of movie, movies do not have a last aired date. Can you provide a source that the movie was only broadcast on television for the one day, and no others? Not likely, given that the movie was then released in different countries are later dates. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  02:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Alex has mentioned the main header for the column is "Originally aired" the sub headers of "first/last aired" are for full seasons/series and they indicate when they began and ended. The Eighth Doctor film was a one-off and does not need a (totally redundant) mention of its air date a second time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In previous edits, the date went across both columns (first aired and last aired). Surely doing that again would be OK? Also, the second column means the last date the episode was on as an original production, so that would be the 12th May 1996.Theoosmond (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That would still be making the last aired date of the movie as 12 May 1996, which is what we're avoiding here. And the second column is for when a series or season last aired, not a movie. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  10:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But doesn't the second column mean the last time the episode originally aired, so any repeats have no mention in this table and 12 May 1996 is the last date the movie originally aired?Theoosmond (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically not, given that the movie was produced by multiple countries, and was released at different times within those countries. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  11:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The last aired field is when the last episode of a serial was aired. The movie has no episodes, so no last aired date.  11:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But haven't all Doctor Who episodes aired at different times in different countries? And the movie has a final episode, it's just the same episode as the first episode.Theoosmond (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They are not, however, produced in different countries, and hence do not have different "original" airing dates. And the movie is a single "episode", if you will - for there to be a "last" episode, there must be more than one. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll just leave that square alone, then, so it still says N/A.Theoosmond (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The girl who died/the woman who lived
Is there a source for this being a two parter? 94.4.98.216 (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the big fat "TO BE CONTINUED" at the end of TGWD. Has also been discussed at Talk:Doctor Who (series 9).  22:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)
 * Talk:The Girl Who Died
 * Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 23:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I wasn't aware of the other discussions.  Doctor who is full of cases where one story goes directly into the next, so I was just wondering if there was anything more than a wiki made assumption for this one.  94.4.98.216 (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Series 10
Peter Capaldi and Steven Moffat confirmed in interviews that a full series is coming in 2016. Is this noteworthy in any way at this stage? BlueBlue11 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well now that we know that Series 10 will be a full series and will air in 2016, we should list this year's Christmas special under Series 10. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your source? It should remain as it until a table can be created for Series 10, then have the heading renamed under Series 10. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  20:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * [Here's a source]: "We’re making a full series. I can confirm that. I’m making a full series of 12 episodes, plus a Christmas special. I don’t know when it goes out. That’s up to someone else." - Steven Moffat. So when's the best time to make a Series 10 table/page now that we know it is coming and the amount of episodes it has? --TARDIS2468 (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably once there's at least enough information (2+ pieces of information) to make an episode table for Season 10, then create the page and merge the Christmas Special with the Series 10 table. Would that be fair enough? There's not much more we can do with this information, as per WP:TVOVERVIEW, we can't add a row to the Overview table until a Series 10 table can be created (as in, for the series, not the special+series). Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  04:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Intro Needs updated
The intro states that " Unless otherwise noted, episodes in this period are 25 minutes long" for the classic seties, and "Unless otherwise noted, the new episodes are 45 minutes long" for the new series - but the article no longer notes this on things like Resurrection of the Daleks, or the Christmas specials. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

824 episode count
Just wondering where the current count of 824 episodes comes from? I transposed the episode counts from the Season table into excel (as I was initially looking for a count of episodes from just the first 7 Doctors), and including the 8th Doctor's movie, but excluding the forthcoming Christmas Special (as currently represented by said table), I get a resulting sum of 817. I double-checked all the numbers I transposed against the table. So, are there 7 episodes somewhere not accounted for in the table? If 824 is accurate, should it not be sourced and/or represented properly in the table? Also, would it be possible/fair to have a totals row at the bottom of the table? Just wondering. -- Ds093 (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I see now where the 7 episodes are missing. 7 of the Christmas specials are not counted in the season table at the top (including the forthcoming one to air Christmas 2015).  Still…should not they be reflected in some way? -- Ds093 (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request
The colour for Series 9 in the Series Overview box needs to be changed to match the Series 9 table. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Series 9 table's colour was changed to reflect the new artwork. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  22:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"Serials" vs episodes
Good morning. Why is the List of Doctor Who serials named just that when every other series / show is name "List of xxx episodes"? It seems inconsistent to me, so I'd propose a rename. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towe96 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please search and check the archives for already-closed discussions identical to this, and you will find your answer. There are now links at the header of this page that link directly to these discussions. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer, Alex. Though I do not think that the 2005 series should have to carry the burden of the old series' format, I guess that's just the way it'll be for all these nostalgic people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towe96 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should spend more time doing simple research about this show rather than claiming that the revived series shouldn't "carry the burden of the old series' format", whatever that means. BlueBlue11 (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil, and when commenting, contribute to the discussion. In reply to Towe96's comment, please read the past discussions - the new series' covers less than a quarter of the entire programme. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  00:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ninth Doctor and Tenth Doctor episode titles
Just a heads up. I've noticed that the Ninth Doctor episode titles and the Tenth Doctor episode titles for Series 4 and the specials have been replaced with silly names. It appears that this has been the case since 27 December 2014, which appears to be around the time of a major re-formatting of the page. Just thought it was strange that it hasn't been spotted in almost 12 months. Nothing else appears to have been discombobulated as far as I can see. GeneralClaudius (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think they're all fixed now. Ratemonth (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? A year? You mean today? The edits were only just implemented today, as per Special:Diff/695669272 and Special:Contributions/85.150.100.188. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  23:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Including specials in episode count
I reverted this edit by on the series 9 article which added "Last Christmas" to the episode count in the infobox. Then I realized it's not consistent across all series articles. Series 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 have specials listed in the main episode table, and most of them except for series 3 and 9 include the specials in the infobox episode count. I don't think they should be added directly to the episode count, but I'm not sure. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Episode ratings
Care should be taken with the citation for episode ratings. Every use of it with exception of series 9 used the following citation: When the series tables are transcluded into this page, any commonly named citations not agreeing with each other will cause an error to be displayed in the reflist. This was just corrected with series 8 and a small table on this page. With such a large page, these things can get very messy. Ryan8374 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That cite is a bit of a problem of itself - since you have an access date before the air date on recent series. A limitation of trying to simplify by linking to a composite page rather than linking to the specific page on the episode. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * has a point. Cite web documentation states that accessdate should be the "Full date when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article". Perhaps we should forgo the use of the reference in every season/series article, and add a statement on this page (possibly under ) about the verification of the viewer counts with the reference. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's more in keeping with policy to do it properly by linking to the actual page in question, complete with access date. Bulks out the refs section but does give proper traceability. Alternatively if a dead tree source is used, then it can be book and page number. Even with a web, it is possible to do a basic reference - givening website etc information and a short cite to specific page. Short citations take up less room in a "columned" refs section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Listing Christmas specials
I've posted this on a new section as the over one has become about all Christmas specials and not just the husbands of river song after looking at some other to shows on Wikipedia and the list I've released that having one rule for all Christmas specials is impossible as all David tenants specials fit very well with the following series as that is how they wher filmed where as the mat smith specials are all over the place with what sires they go with and that's not even metaning the end of time and time of the Doctor which feature regenerations which makes it deficit to list them with the flowing shinies the best idea is to list all Christmas specials separately accept for the 2008 and 9 specials as they are already in the 2008 to 10 spesals the same is true of thee 2013 specials its probably best to cheap the 2012 special in the middle of series 7 as it connects to the story arc of the series more than any other Christmas special outside of the grouped ones2.26.206.85 (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude, but I barely understood this. What I did get is that you created a new discussion about an already existing discussion - please cease such actions and return to the original discussion. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  10:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I've posted this on a new section as the other one has become about all Christmas specials and not just the husbands of river song. After looking at some other to TV shows on Wikipedia and the list I've come to the conclusion that having one rule for all Christmas specials is impossible, as the production schedule and broadcast format has evolved over the last 10 years and will only continue to evolve over time so it’s probably best to decide what is best for each special individually my idea is to list them sparely except the next doctor, the end of time, the snowmen and the time of the doctor as they currently are2.26.206.85 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that 'Last Christmas' and 'The Husbands of River Song' should be as epilogues to series 8 and 9 respectively, instead of prologues to series 9 and series 10. I hope to see this rectified in the future or as others have said split all Christmas episodes from the series the are attached to and give them their own sections between series. Lotrjw (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Average Ratings
Why have all the average ratings been removed from the overview table? They seemed like pretty useful information and now they're completely gone. 109.151.163.216 (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you think of checking the article history? It clearly states the following: WP:TVOVERVIEW states "If average viewership numbers are included, they should be adequately sourced, and not the result of your own calculations as this would constitute original research." Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake, no need to be so patronising. Still, it's worked fine for years up until today.109.151.163.216 (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. Editors probably haven't been aware of the specifics of WP:TVOVERVIEW - if there's a source stating all of the averages, then they can most definitely be reinstated. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Double Mentions
There are 3 double mentions of the first three Christmas specials on this page. I removed them, but put them back. I'm here to try to find out why.Theoosmond (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been completely restored to the complete status quo. The issues have been fixed with this. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Series 7
Sorry to keep asking questions, but wouldn't it look better if Series 7 was split up entirely? Like, "Part 1 (2012)", "Special (2012)", "Part 2 (2013)" listed outside of the tables (by which point there would be three). Sorry if this has already been discussed, just wondering. Additionally, "Voyage of the Damned" and "The Runaway Bride" are listed twice still - in the Series 4 and Series 3 tables respectively as well as on their own. 109.151.163.216 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been completely restored to the complete status quo. The issues have been fixed with this. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Shame. Looked far better. 109.151.163.216 (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverting minisode removals and Christmas episode combinations from 2014
I have found only 2 comments for the minisodes being taken of the main episode list page and I would like a proper discussion about this, as I feel they should be back. 2nd I think that due to this and the situation where there isnt consensus on the Christmas specials that we should revert to what the situation was at 09:31, 27 December 2014. Lotrjw (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Again: You've been told that isn't happening. Why are you wanting to remove the transclusions? That's what you'd be doing. You would be reverting over a year's worth of edits on this page. You will not gain consensus of that. And the minisodes do not contribute to the total story count, hence they should not be included. This page is for episodes that have aired that are part of a season/series or Christmas specials. Something else you won't gain consensus on. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ?
 * And here you go: Talk:List of Doctor Who serials/Archive 13. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Minisodes are very much part of the story though and should be listed if they are considered cannon at least, as it would be good to have the story in order, this would also include episode prequels as there were on some of the series 7 and I think series 6 episodes. Maybe with the prequels a box next the episode in the series table so each series wouldn't become too cluttered.
 * I dont think it matters if the minisodes dont have story numbers, as its the ongoing story and being able to put them in a coherent order is more important, episode or serial numbering isnt effected by the minisodes being there. Also I dont suggest taking away from the separate minisode page that is fine as it is. (Taken from my post in the other section as this is a more appropriate place for this.)Lotrjw (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. They do contribute to the story. That's why there's an entire page dedicated to them. (And the BBC refuse to comment on what is and is not canon, so we can't use that.) You want the separate page AND a listing on this page? Way too much information. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I do feel that having them on both is good and not too much, unless people want another page with both combined, with this page as is? As far as cannon goes I realise the BBC dont commit (so they can decide to change later of course!), but there is surely accepted cannon? Lotrjw (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The BBC says there's no stand on canon, so there's no stand on canon. And there's zero need to have them on two pages. The reason they were initially split to the separate page is because this page had too much content already. Did you read the discussion I linked you to? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This is why I suggested another page if people feel it's too much information, it would be a choice then view it all together or view separately. And as far as splits go we wouldn't say oh special episodes should be on an entirely different page just because they are specalled episodes, no they remain. Lotrjw (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Small issue there: That's exactly how splits work. "This shouldn't be here, so we'll create another page for it." Exactly that. And what? You want one page with just episodes, one with just specials, and one combined for the reader's pleasure? That's too much clutter and maintenance, an idea that will never be approved. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't say have to have a specials page, but having a page with minisodes and a page without will obviously keep everyone happy. Lotrjw (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So, you want a page of serials/episodes, and a page of serials/episodes/minisodes? Nononono. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well either we have two pages or we just list minisodes with the episodes, as well as a minisode page. Lotrjw (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but what part of "minisodes are not episodes" do you not understand? BlueBlue11 (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They are though they are just mini episodes! Lotrjw (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)