Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 14

Story Number / Total Episode Number
It's never occurred to be before, but why do we list episode table with Story Numbers instead of the Total Episode Number, as per almost every article for a television show's episodes? Even the articles states that [t]he three-digit story numbers are not official designations but are merely to serve as a guide to where the story stands in the overall context of the programme. The total episode number in the series, however, is official. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 11:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How exactly would you go about numbering the classic episodes? It makes more sense to list the classic episodes as stories rather than their individual episodes, and I guess that numbering just carried over to the new episodes for continuity's sake. Though I guess you could group the classic episodes into stories but also list the individual episode count alongside them. BlueBlue11 (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And have three columns identifying the numbers? That's unnecessary, and Episode table nor Episode list allow it. Given that the second sentence of this article is "As of 25 December 2015, 826 episodes of Doctor Who have aired, concluding the ninth series", then goes on to mention stories, it does make sense to list them by episode number. Story 1 would be Episodes 1–4, Story 2 would be Episode 5–11, etc. Note that not even "187c" or "260a" (story numbers with letters) are official designations, invented by Wikipedia editors. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with listing them by episode number, but I'd propose that we still list the overall classic story titles somewhere. If you just title the classic episodes "Episode One, Episode Two..." or "Part One, Part Two.." it would be near impossible to break them down into the individual stories, and under the titles that they are universally referred to. BlueBlue11 (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not meaning like that. I mean listing them as one of the following, given that story numbers are not official. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd rather have the second one. Do you mind showing how you would change the new series template? BlueBlue11 (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Same thing. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  13:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer the first one. I don't think there's an advantage to listing the individual episode numbers, since it's all in one table row, so it wouldn't really help screen reader users or anything. Also – this applies to the current version of the article as well – the contrast ratio between the season 1 background and the AI link is too low, it doesn't even reach the AA level. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So do I take it we've agreed on this? If we have agreed on it then I'm happy to edit the page myself. BlueBlue11 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a test run of Season One, tell me what you think and if I should do it for real: BlueBlue11 (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Episodes are missing


 * That looks confusing. We really should point out the difference between stories and epsiodes, otherwise, it is just inside (fan) information.  19:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It already is explained: "As of 25 December 2015, 826 episodes of Doctor Who have aired, concluding the ninth series. This includes one television movie, and encompasses 261 stories over 35 seasons." Also how is it fan information?BlueBlue11 (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What the real fan information is are the story numbers. We're listing them without any source that explicitly states them, and we're having a discussion on what they should be without - again - any source that explicitly states them. Total episode numbers, however, are definitive and cannot be changed. Clarification is given in the header with "No. overall" and "No. in season/series". Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  02:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Doctor Who Magazine, citing Russell T Davies, is our source all the way up to story #200. DonQuixote (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And what about past #200? Even then (this is directly from the Planet of the Dead of the article), it states that Russell T Davies admitted that the designation was arbitrary and debatable, and hence it shouldn't be something we're basing a major listing of episodes on. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  06:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Doctor Who Magazine had a 241 story count after the Matt Smith era ended. It continues to be a source listing an official story count, and therefore, making it perfectly valid to include the story count in the list of serials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.26.5 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is: don't use vague terms in the table headers, just cal them what they are: "episode number" and "story number".  11:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I see your point. However, once story numbers are totally eliminated, there won't be anything to be vague about, it will all be episode numbers. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  11:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Has a decision been made regarding removal of story numbers? As the introduction of the page says The numbering scheme used here reflects the current internal practice of describing "Planet of the Dead" (2009) as the 200th story, used in the official magazine's 407th issue. As for past DWM 407, DWM 474 lists 241 stories and on page 64 states "With 41 gleaming new stories from The Water of Mars to The Time of the Doctor, this was the latest opportunity to sort your Mentors from your Mentiads and your Krillitanes from your Kroll. We presented you with a list of all 241 stories and asked you to compare, contrast and critique". I think story numbers do exist 'officially' within Doctor Who, as used by the official magazine, which does make it unique compared with other series. So on a page that lists all this information, having each story is important information worth keeping.    The Windler      talk   12:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I don't see why they need to have padded zeroes. It could be "1" instead of "001".    The Windler      talk   12:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The suggestion seems to be to not count the stories while still grouping episodes together in stories. That makes zero sense. If we're grouping episodes into stories, there is no reason not to count stories. As for the reason why every other show doesn't do this is because Doctor Who is relatively unique in this respect. The story count is official because we have the official Doctor Who magazine and the official promotion of Planet of the Dead as the 200th Story. Ridding the article of story count would be eliminating a helpful and sourced piece of information for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.26.5 (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What further information do story numbers provide? Nothing. Nothing at all. Episode Totals have always been the go-to numbers for listings; the main Doctor Who article even uses the total number in the infobox before the story numbers, and the latter was only a recent addition thanks to your truly. We are not grouping the episode together in stories, we are grouping them by total episode number. It does not matter whether you think your viewpoint of Doctor Who being "unique" is true or not - Wikipedia goes by a standard. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  13:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My view that Doctor Who is unique in this regard is not my personal opinion nor is not against Wikipedia standard. It's simple logic. Doctor Who counts stories (hence "Planet of the Dead" advertised as the 200th story") while other shows count episodes (ex. The Simpsons advertising their 100th, 200th or 300th episode). Doctor Who never made a big deal over what the 800th episode was, because that is not how the show has been ever counted. The story count is official (BBC and Doctor Who Magazine) and practical. So it makes no sense to confuse things by switching over to episodes. And yes, you would still be group episodes by stories in your suggestion, if you group all 4 episodes of An Unearthly Child together (as you do in your example), that is still making a grouping based on this concept of a story. All your switch would do is make this page really confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.26.5 (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How can the episode count not be official? Are you seriously implying that the story total is more official than the episode total? And no, it wouldn't be confusing to number the classic episodes while still grouping them into stories. There's already explanations at the start of the article and I think it's pretty easy to follow. BlueBlue11 (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wasn't implying that at all. I was implying that the story count has been used for promotion purposes more than episode count, which makes this push for episode count over story count seem rather arbitrary. If we do have to make a choice of using one or the other, we should go with the one that is actually used by the BBC and other sources to promote the show. That's story count. Besides we count the stories the same way we would episodes, we start at the number one and count up. The math doesn't change. And if we are grouping classic episode by stories, then yes it makes sense to count by stories. For these reasons, there is nothing wrong with basing this article on story count.71.167.26.5 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So, we should count the new series exactly the same as the classic series because of a totally different production scheme? Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  01:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Grouping the episodes by story for the classic series but not for the modern series would doing exactly that, and it would look weird. Keeping a story count on the other hand is consistent and reflects the ways the episodes are counted by official sources.71.167.26.5 (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except for everything after "The Time of the Doctor". Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  07:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * why change after time of the Doctor the fact is that story count is used to promote the show and to refer to story's and episode count is only used as trivia like with the 100th new episode and the 800th overall even DWM polls list story's not episodes expat with one part story's if you want to number epiasodes add another column don't remove story Numbers 2.26.206.85 (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying I'd change everything after TToTD, I was saying it's all unsourced. Also, milestones are trivial in any format, episode or story, such as this. 100th new episode trivial? So's 100th story. Also noted is that DWM is a totally different thing than Wikipedia, and a third column cannot be added, given that neither Episode table nor Episode list are compatible for that. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  11:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The story count's official is it? "The three-digit story numbers are not official designations but are merely to serve as a guide to where the story stands in the overall context of the programme." BlueBlue11 (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your source for their unofficialness of story numbering is an unsourced claim on the wikipedia page? That doesn't hold any weight. As for everything after The Time of the Doctor. No, it isn't unsourced. Doctor Who Magazine and other sources still state what the stories are even if they haven't had an official poll of all the stories since Time of the the Doctor. But we have season polls and other guides to source.71.167.26.5 (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. These polls do not directly state the story numbers, hence they remain unsourced. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 23:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the polls provide a source for the stories are. The story numbers come from lining these stories up in order and counting them, the exact same way you would calculate total episode number. You know Time of the Doctor is story x, then you know Deep Breath is story x+1, because it is the next story. The same is true for episodes. If you know Time of the Doctor is episode x, then you know Deep Breath is episode x+1, because that is the next episode. So I'm really not sure where you are trying to go with this argument.71.167.26.5 (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but manual calculations are original research. They need to explicitly state the story numbers. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  01:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That would only make sense if you also need a source to "explicitly" state episode number, which you don't seem to believe and isn't a standard any television show on Wikipedia seems to need. Your suggesting the same calculations be used. 71.167.26.5 (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What? It "isn't a standard any television show on Wikipedia seems to need"? Really? Doctor Who is the only television series that doesn't list its episodes by total episode number. It seems you need to visit Wikipedia a bit more. Episode numbers are solid and cannot be debated - story numbers are based upon interpretation - even Russell T Davis said that they're unreliable (further up in the discussion). There's an entire discussion about story numbers for Face the Raven / Heaven Sent / Hell Bent. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  02:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not the only television series on wikipedia that doesn't list its episodes by total episode number, episode numbers can be debated (Is that two-hour episode one episode or two? Do the episodes counted in production order or airing order?), and the Russell T Davies was still the person who pushed for The Planet of the Dead to promoted as the 200th episode, showing that he also subscribed to the story count. As for the numbering to the final stories of Series 9. Moffat and Doctor Who Magazine have gone on record about how they should be counted, people have been over this in that thread. I seem to remember you being one of the only hold-outs on that manner. Even so, you missed my point. My comment wasn't about whether other shows use total episode count. It pertained to the fact that you were asking for a source on a total story count, while not asking the same for a total episode count. To be honest, it doesn't seem like this is about whether story numbering can be sourced. It seems to be about your personal preference for one over the other. As a result, you are grasping at straws. There is a system in place, we have sources to support it, and the formatting works. There is no reason to change it.71.167.26.5 (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Story numbers can be debated. Total episode counts cannot. You're arguing your preference for one, I'm arguing mine for the other. I am not grasping at straws - you are the one making large replies to make yourself appear as if you have a more solid argument, when there is no basis or foundation behind any of your arguments. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry the size of my responses bothers you, but I'm just making sure my replies are thorough. Anyway, again, we have sources for the stories that are perfectly sound. We have sources that show they are counted that way, sources that show that show the exact number of stories through the Matt Smith era, and sources that confirm exactly what constitute stories in the Peter Capaldi era, which gives us, again, the exact number of stories currently released. That is the basis of my argument, which you have been trying to skate around. And since we do, in fact, have sources, it would seem my arguments do have basis and foundation, despite your attempts to dismiss them.71.167.26.5 (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So, as an example, would you say that there needs to be explicit ources for the total episode numbers at, say, List of Once Upon a Time episodes, given that there's multiple two parters and hence a different number of "stories"? Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  04:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no, because, first, doing so would be the natural extension of your argument, not mine. Second, Once Upon a Time has never used the term stories as a way to count itself, nor have stories ever been determined by or used as a counter by ABC, the production team, or an officially related magazine. Doctor Who, on the other hand, does, and there happen to be sources that back that up.71.167.26.5 (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're unaware of the simply meaning of an "example". This is going in circles, more editors need to contribute to the discussion. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  05:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because it's example, it doesn't automatically hold weight. In this case, trying to compare this situation to Once Upon a Time is a false analogy. The two situations are different. Doctor Who has a story count, which can be sourced. Once Upon a Time doesn't.71.167.26.5 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Same analogy. As I said, I await the input of other editors. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  14:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. I wan't making an analogy of my own, just showing how yours didn't work. Your analogy is hugely flawed for the reasons I stated above.71.167.26.5 (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Expanding on my early point story numbers are used far more than episode number in fact the episode number has only been acknowledged in DWM and on the BBC website as triva about episodes in fact the fact that it had been 10 years since the new series was announced as being in development got more attention from DWM and fans in general than the 100th new episode or the 800th overall compeer this with say stargate sg1 who for their 200th episode made an episode called 200 and used the exsqwes to bring bake old characters and make fun of the making of tv sci fi shows in general or even star trek witch in the 700th live action episode revisited several plot trends from the original TV show like the mirror universe and the defiant the 200th doctor who story however got acknowledged in the promotion and the episode the episode count should only be included if it can be done without taking anything of the page as it is now2.26.206.85 (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the episode count has to be "acknowledged" officially before an episode number can be listed on this page. The reason why the 800th episode wasn't advertised as such was because there was a much bigger thing to promote with that episode (eg. it was the Eleventh Doctor's last episode) and it would have seemed tacky to say the least, especially coming after Day of the Doctor which was the 50th anniversary special. You couldn't celebrate the 50th anniversary episode and then one month later celebrate the 800th episode, which would have seemed like a fairly trivial celebration in comparison to Day of the Doctor. BlueBlue11 (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * it's that the story number is used by the official magazine and the production team more often than episode number so if it's a choice between one or the other then story number is the best option 2.26.206.85 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it would be weird to have a section of The Planet of the Dead article devoted to talking about how it was promoted as the 200th story, and then not have the stories listed in way that reflects that. The way we have it makes sense and corresponds with information in the individual articles. Speculation on why Time of the Doctor wasn't highlighted as the 800th episode is just that, speculation. It doesn't hold any actual weight. On the other hand, story number has been used by the production team, BBC, and official Magazine for promotional purposes.71.167.26.5 (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So, do pray tell, where on Wikipedia does it say that we are the Magazine, and that we must follow everything that they do? Simply because one thing related to the series "officially" does it, no reason as to why we have to do the same. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  23:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I never implied any such thing. The magazine is a source, however, and a strong one due to their ties with the BBC and the production team. That provides a strong basis for the story count. The story count is sourced, it is used beyond just fan circles, and it's comprehensive and looks nice on the page. That's plenty of reason to keep it.71.167.26.5 (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I had worked on adding episode numbers to the Season pages for the Classic series using the Doctor Who Episode list template implemnted for the new series (to group episodes by story number) - I had stopped as it looked like that template was nominated for deletion and I didn't want to put more work in - then I forgot! Anyway, here's examples in my sandbox for Season 1 and Season 25 - story summaries would not be shown in the transclusion, I assume... Etron81 (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that for the sixties episodes, this makes it more clear as to who directed what episode in the cases a story has more than one director (or writer) Etron81 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Positive are that it makes it easy to tell how long story's are as well as easyer to read info about individual episodes as well like with viewing figures and ai number it also makes the list consistent between new and old saries Negative it fills the list with repetitive info in the writers episode title and directors except for some exsptinal story's from the 1960s 2.26.206.85 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Also it may resolve the long running name debate to use the episode list devised by eltron81 as the list whood be of episodes not story's allowed the story count will still be included 2.26.206.85 (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who stars
On the pages Doctor Who (series 1), Doctor Who (series 2), Doctor Who (2008–10 specials) and Doctor Who (series 6), I made edits to the list of actors who starred in those series based on who played the Doctor and companions. All the edits were reverted, the first three by, claiming that the actors didn't star in the series, and the last by , who claimed that James Corden did not play a companion, even though there is a source on the page Closing Time (Doctor Who) that James Corden played a companion. I am here to try and find out what they meant with these reverts. Theoosmond (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , . Could you answer my questions, please, what grounds are we basing starring characters on for the infobox on Doctor Who series pages, and how is James Corden not a companion, it says he is on the wiki page.Theoosmond (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You already answered them. Read your own statement.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, my question was, why don't you think Corden isn't a companion? It says he is on his wiki page. Answer my question please, what are the grounds we are basing starring characters on for the infoboxes?Theoosmond (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, where did I answer my own questions?Theoosmond (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2016
shada 109 episode will change count on remaining by one        check eBay dvd list for sale dvd's use corect story number

Lwmattoxusa (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 15:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * From the lede: The three-digit story numbers are not official designations but are merely to serve as a guide to where the story stands in the overall context of the programme. There is some dispute about, for example, whether to count Season 23's The Trial of a Time Lord as one or four serials,[2] and whether the uncompleted Shada should be included.[3] The numbering scheme used here reflects the current internal practice of describing "Planet of the Dead" (2009) as the 200th story, used in the official magazine's 407th issue.[4] Other sources, such as the Region 1 DVDs of classic Doctor Who serials, use different numbering schemes which diverge after the 108th story, The Horns of Nimon (1979/80). DonQuixote (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Series 10
Do we now have enough information to create the Series 10 page? BlueBlue11 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Such as? We certainly don't have enough for an episode table. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 05:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why a stub cant be created if an editor so wishes, with a note stating it is due to start in 2017. Lotrjw (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Stubs shouldn't exist and should be immediately expanded upon in sight if possible. This is not possible with this particular series, so it should not be created until there is more content. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 22:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Separating Christmas specials
I have re-started a dicussion about whether we should remove the Christmas specials from the series tables, and give them a small table on the main page for this page. I do not propose doing anything with 'The Next Doctor', 'The End of Time' and 'Time of the Doctor', and possibly 'The Snowmen'. I personally reckon we should split the Christmas specials from the series pages.Theoosmond (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion is not over, please take this issue there. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a new discussion.Theoosmond (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose this move as it makes the page needlesley measey and dos not acuretley describ how all of the speasal where made or how they are viwded by the public or released by the bbc also this discussion is redundant as there is one already ongoing abut how to list the spesials20:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)213.205.252.230 (talk)
 * This dicussion is not redundant, it is about something different.Theoosmond (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)