Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 16

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on List of Doctor Who serials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160123062608/http://gallifreyone.com/guides-canon.php to http://gallifreyone.com/guides-canon.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160122193800/http://www.gallifreyone.com/epguide.php to http://www.gallifreyone.com/epguide.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Classic series/revived series split?
I was originally against this, but with other shows like the Simpsons having to split their episode lists I have warmed to the idea. This list is only going to get longer and longer and it makes sense to split it into classic series and revived series lists even though it is regarded as the same show. BlueBlue11 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the archives for this talk page. There have been many discussions on this very topic over the past years. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 15:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The End of Time
I still don't understand why "The End of Time" is italicized rather than in quotes. The rationale given is "it's a two-parter", but there are numerous other TV series two-parters with the same title for both parts and the episode titles are put in quotes as normal. Can someone point me to a relevant MOS guideline or something, if one exists? nyuszika7h (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a consistency thing. The hour-long two-episode Black Orchid of the classic series is considered a serial. DonQuixote (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see all the serials in the classic series are italicized. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, it's a consistency thing. Since multi-episodes in the classic series are in italics, so are the ones in the new series. DonQuixote (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * MOS:TITLE is what you are after, I'll quote some stuff from it here - emphasis is mine. Italics: "Television and radio programs, specials, shows, series and serials" Quotes: "Single episodes or plot arcs of a television series". Seems to be whether it is considered a "plot arc" or "serial". Dresken (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is one in which will be filled shortly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.206.64.130 (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't Panic. It is the series 10 page - not this one - that is being speedily deleted. However it is to be able to restore the correct version of the series 10 article (with proper edit history) that was moved. Dresken (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This entire thing is a mess. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 22:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * DO Panic; the final reference is GONE.... 2601:18F:900:6E4:BCAF:2F0D:2FEC:9564 (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Messed Up Table
Is nobody aware of the messed up overview table? I'm not touching it. 109.151.166.163 (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorted the table out, I guess nobody was aware of the table issue. Thank you for pointing it out.   The Doctor      ????  15:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies about that, fellas. The result was after some unexpected edits of mine at Module:Series overview; this has now been fixed. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 22:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Series Tables
Is it just me or does the page display all the summaries of all the episodes post-2005 rather than just the basic information that it should do? Unless this was intentional. 109.151.164.111 (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Another editor has fixed this. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit
How do you edit the tables? I mean... I see the "Series 9" table have been vandalized. I would very much like to know how I edit them to be able to rectify it, but I can't, as I don't know how. Can someone help? --Danniesen (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:WIKICODE. DonQuixote (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Where specifically do I need to look? --Danniesen (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You should read the entire guide, but if you want to skip to Tables, there's a Table of Contents to help you. DonQuixote (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that I didn't know how to edit tables. I meant that I don't know what page to go to if I want to edit those specific tables. --Danniesen (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If a table is transcluded from another page, then there is typically a link above the table stating which article it is from. Click that, and you can edit the table directly from that article. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So let's say I went to "Doctor Who (series 10)" and edited the table there, the series 10 table on this page would change too? --Danniesen (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. After you've edited Doctor Who (series 10), you may need to purge this article to see the changes. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I misunderstood you. DonQuixote (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. It was just to be able to revert it by myself next time there's vandalism. --Danniesen (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The episodes "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" should be Story 256a and 256b, respectively
I'm thinking the episodes "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" should be Story 256a and 256b, respectively. The extras distributed digitally combines the two episodes, they have the same director, and they're connected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.170.180 (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a WP:RS that shows that the BBC used those as the production codes for the two episodes? That is what is needed to make any changes. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Please see the header of Talk:Doctor Who (series 9), specifically the infobox stating "Grouping the episodes "The Girl Who Died" / "The Woman Who Lived" and "Face the Raven" / "Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent" has already previously been suggested and discussed, but have all been rejected. Before re-opening this discussion, review the discussions listed below", and the five discussions linked there regarding this topic. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Girl Who Died and The Woman Who Lived are connected. That's true. But they are not a two-parter. Therefore it should not be changed. --Danniesen (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible creation of Series 11 page
As series 11 of the revived series of Doctor Who has been announced by the BBC to be Chris Chibnall's first as showrunner, and thus officially confirmed, is it worth creating the page? I believe this to have some merit because other production information has emerged (Matt Strevens' appointment as Executive Producer, Capaldi's still-to-be-decided situation, possible addition of a writer's room to the series, etc.), and I believe there exists enough sources to provide references beyond original research.

However as series 10 hasn't even finished filming, and it is over a year before series 11 airs (without a confirmed airdate beyond the "spring 2018" announcement), this may be considered to be "jumping the gun", as it were. Any thoughts? Zaoramba (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * IMO it is WP:TOOSOON for a stand alone article. What I have seen in the past is a series table being started on this article with sourced info being added judiciously. Then when the new series is finally in production that info gets moved to the new article. My info might be out of date so if I am wrong about this I know that other members of the Dr Who wikiproject will be along to give you the correct info. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good lord, way too soon. What would it contain? There's Chris becoming showrunner, but there's no information on filming, episodes, official production, any of that. Many of the articles I've helped edited, some of which have been promoted to GA status, have created the season articles when the season has official started filming, much like how articles on films are created. You are, of course, more than welcome to start a draft at Draft:Doctor Who (series 11), but in the main namespace, it would definitely be jumping the gun, as you said. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Production codes for Series 7+
While production codes were abandoned from Series 7 onwards, would it be worthwhile to add a column (for example, Production Number) that lists the order that the episodes were filmed, for Series 7 onwards, per the production blocks? This would be almost identical to the original use of the production codes. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's best leaving it to avoid confusion, especially if the production order is different to the filming order. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 13:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Production codes were never related to production order but rather to how they were intended to air (which is why they line up perfectly barring the 2011 series). Ruffice98 (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, for the 2011 series, it wasn't for they were intended to air, so your statement doesn't make much sense... Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * is correct, they decided to swap "The Curse of the Black Spot" and "Night Terrors" around during production, "The Curse of the Black Spot" was originally meant to be in part 2 and "Night Terrors" in part 1, but the change came after they gave the episodes production codes. And also your proposed system sounds pretty complicated, especially since episodes are usually filmed at the same time as another episode. TedEdwards (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No, it was when they were intended to air, the order changed after production but before broadcast. Ruffice98 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I said. TedEdwards (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Can someone use this source to calculate the averages for each series
http://guide.doctorwhonews.net/info.php?detail=ratings&type=date — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNerdz12 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ Per WP:TVOVERVIEW: 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. Sourcing is crucial for accuracy, and to help other editors quickly respond to numerical vandalism. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 18:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, that MOS seems to go against WP:CALC which is part of WP:OR policy - performing simple math like calculating an average from a data source is not classed as OR. Dresken (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that this would fall under the categorization of a "routine calculation". Content needs to be sourced to verify that it is true; if a random editor modifies an average incorrectly, and this is missed and not reverted, it stands in the article incorrectly, and is unverifiable unless someone calculates the averages again. This would be extremely cumbersome for how seasons/series the programme has. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 19:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would disagree - it is definitely a routine calculation - addition and division of a short list of obvious numbers from a reliable secondary source (that we use already). Either way it is definitely a stretch of the imagination to call the average of sourced data "Original Research". I can understand the intent of the MOS - trying to make it easier on arbitrators - but labelling it as OR is grossly incorrect. Also I would like to just point out that "a random editor modifies an average incorrectly" is assuming bad faith before it even happens. Despite this, I don't care what goes in the series overview table - as long as it is a consensus for editors here for what they can manage - but we can't dismiss one choice as OR incorrectly. Dresken (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Series 11
A draft has been start for Series 11 at Draft:Doctor Who (series 11); contributions are welcome, but the article should not be moved to the mainspace until the series has began filming. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Series 10 Titles
Not only is The Haunted Hub not confirmed, but the episode listing is this, according to DWM:

The Pilot, Smile, Thin Ice, Knock Knock, Oxygen, Extremis, The Pyramid at the End of the World, The Lie of the Land, The Empress of Mars, The Eaters of Light

Feel free not you add them, but The Haunted Hub was only ever a rumour to begin with and definitely shouldn't be here. Microbat98 (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ There has been no official press release for these titles. Cheers. --  Alex TW 06:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not adding them as I don't have the source myself to be able to reference - but I thought we considered DWM to be a WP:RELIABLE source for this information. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We do. However, given that DWM #511 isn't even out yet... --  Alex TW 07:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense - my mistake - the original post seemed to imply it was out and I didn't check. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no problems! I had to look it up first to check as well. I'm not sure where they're getting this. Besides, the past two series have had their episodes released 5 days before the premiere. --  Alex TW 07:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well. DoctorWhoTV is reporting titles titles as well now as an official statement, and we've always used them as a reliable source, so. --  Alex TW 10:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I got the information from DWM, as I'm a subscriber and subscribers get them early. I'm more angered by the fact that you refused to remove the rumoured title 'The Haunted Hub' from the listing, as you were essentially telling readers that it's the official title. But I'm more than happy to sit here in the comfort of knowing that you were in the wrong. Microbat98 (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What on Earth are you talking about? I didn't refuse to remove anything. If you get angered by that, you need to take a look at your place in editing here and understand what you are doing. And you got the information from a source that was not publicly verifiable. So, using your initial source, it could not have been added to this site. Cheers. --  Alex TW 13:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you added The Haunted Hub. It had been there for a while and was just a rumour. That's incredibly unprofessional and you have no place as an official editor here. You base your edits on rumours, clearly, and aren't even subscribed to official Who sources. IIRC, A Star in Her Eye was a title there too, which was also a rumour. How unprofessional. I mean, you mocked me by saying 'I don't know where they're getting this from', but it was common knowledge of the fans I've spoken to on GB over the past couple of days. Microbat98 (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because that's what the reliable sources were stating at the time. If they stated it, it's allowable here per WP:RS and WP:V. It's clear that you hold a grudge against me. Do try to leave your personal grievances at the login gate. And do read the two links I just gave you, then you'll understand why your source cannot be used anywhere on this site. Fans aren't reliable sources either. Cheers. --  Alex TW 13:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You said that you don't know where I got my information from, despite the fact that I gave a source, DWM. It was in there at the point of writing. It wasn't like I made a guess of what was in the next edition. Microbat98 (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and do try to know what you're talking about. You said No, you added The Haunted Hub. Wrong. --  Alex TW 13:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

New Tweaks
Hi, might I suggest some new additions to the episode overview table in order to improve it's appearance visually? These numbers could be changed to "notes" or something, but it makes the table look less "busy" and provides all the necessary information below anyway.

1The First Doctor remained for the first two serials of the first season of the Second Doctor (season 4).

2Also known by it's subtitle, The Key to Time.

3Shada was left unfinished due to a strike. Its recorded footage was later released on home video using linking narration by Tom Baker to complete the story. It is not included in the episode or story counts as it was not broadcast.

4The Fifth Doctor regenerated in the fifth serial of season 21. The Sixth Doctor featured only in the final serial, The Twin Dilemma.

5Also known by it's subtitle, The Trial of a Time Lord.

Hope somebody considers this (or something to this effect). :) 86.183.69.103 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * While your ideas are in good faith and not a bad idea, many readers simply glance at the table and don't read the notes so your idea, while it looks neater, is impractical. However, I will think about improving the idea so it satisfies both issues mentioned. Thanks for the idea anyway. T ed  E dwards  17:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * the cleaner table makes a lot of sense. The table is a summary and for the average reader, a summary with the 'small print' in a set of notes at the bottom of the table makes more sense. If a reader is only going to glance at the table the finesse that a season is actually 6 parts Fifth Doctor and only 1 part the Sixth will be lost in assumption that it's split 50/50 which is what it is currently presented as. I would implement it now as a distinct improvement, and worry about whether the notes should be straight superscript, 'nb' or 'note' later. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A nice idea; I would definitely recommend that the notes be implemented with as notes and not superscript, for which I typically use and  . It would also remove the unnecessary "First/Second Doctor" and "Fifth/Sixth Doctor" lines, and the double-lined seasons caused by their "subtitles". --  Alex TW 00:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A live version of this can be seen in my sandbox; good enough? Side-topic: While we're on the topic of the overview... realistically, it shouldn't have premiere/finale ratings, as those aren't exactly representative of the respective seasons/series, but should have the average for the whole season. DoctorWhoNews' ratings guide only gives averages for years, and manually calculating them is against WP:TVOVERVIEW. Any idea where we can get a source that explicitly gives the averages? --  Alex TW 06:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the notes for the multi-Doctor seasons should be against the season that was impacted - I feel it makes it less clear to go against the multi row Doctor field. Total agree about Season averages - I'd also be up for challenging WP:TVOVERVIEW here - I believe the point of the rule seems to be about ease of confirmation. We have a very reliable source in - and I don't believe calculating a simple average is against WP:CALC. I would be able to write a script that could crawl the page and calculate the averages and make the script available for others to use as well - I feel this keeps the spirit of ease of confirmation. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, per my sandbox example, [a] should be next to the link for Season 4, and [d] should be next to Season 21? I would agree with that, so it's summarizing the season, not the entirety of those Doctors. As a member of the WikiProject Television, I would recommend challenging WP:TVOVERVIEW there before you proceed with the averages, just to be sure, as most self-calculated averages have typically been reverted; per the guideline, as you mentioned, [s]ourcing is crucial for accuracy, and to help other editors quickly respond to numerical vandalism. (As it is, with MOS:TV being overhauled, that section should actually be up for discussion soon(ish).) --  Alex TW 08:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that Premiere and Finale values have no place there. While that is something that happens now in modern TV as a measure of success, it's not the case in the 60s. (Doubly so when the difference between end of a season and start of another is 6 weeks).I personally have no problem like a simple average of the viewership over a season - it is just the sum of the viewers of each episode divided by number of episodes (for which the data is available). GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * " Season 4[a]" & "Season 21[d]" is exactly what I was saying. And all good about the averages - I'm not in any rush - I was more so voicing my opinion here first and seeing if it was something that seemed reasonable to others. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I updated my sandbox. The averages is reasonable, I'd agree, I'm just acting on what I've seen from experience. And just the thought that if a random vandal changes any of the averages without a reason, and the edit is missed, then the incorrect info stands without a source. --  Alex TW 10:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there any way of using to get a table that looks like this


 * Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at here. However, I used a wikitable to make this, not, so I don't know if this is possible using  . I just think using notes could be an small issue, as I don't know how many readers would actually read the notes, but I'm not vehemently against using notes if its the only way round the issue.  T ed  E dwards  11:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do indeed see what you mean, but it is not possible with the Series overview template, no. Funnily enough, I actually implemented that sort of layout sometime last year or the one before (back when the overview was a wikitable), but I was reverted due to it causing accessibility issues. --  Alex TW 11:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't expect this to evoke such a big discussion. I agree that the premier and finale ratings are meaningless (plus in the case of the Specials don't make sense at all). Also the version in Alex 's sandbox looks pretty good and should be implemented. 86.183.69.103 (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we have consensus to remove the premiere and finale ratings then, since no one seems to support them? T ed E dwards  15:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So basically just this copied over?

86.183.69.103 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, pretty much. T ed  E dwards  19:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers to the IP for starting this discussion. I also added hidden sections for the average viewers, to add when there's consensus for that. --  Alex TW 01:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Good job and thank you for the advice Alex - it is really helpful. If the discussion doesn't happen earlier, I'll make sure to get involved with the discussion for that sections review in the MOS. "And just the thought that if a random vandal changes any of the averages without a reason, and the edit is missed, then the incorrect info stands without a source." I would like to raise my thoughts on this sort of thinking. Firstly I believe it is assuming bad faith of only a possible edit - which to me seems opposite to Wikipedia guidelines of WP:GOODFAITH. Secondly I believe the information does technically have a source - but it does requires a routine calculation to get there. I can understand that dealing with the amount of numbers here can be daunting to manually check by hand (I mean for Doctor Who there 828 episodes over 36 seasons!) - however I believe if there is a open tool to reliably assist with this part, it mitigates the difficulty for others to confirm. I have quickly built a tool this morning (if you are interested here's the static results (so my tiny server doesn't melt)) and I will release the code soon after a bit of a clean up (I did this as I wanted to have a working example of what I am arguing for) - from here I believe it is up to consensus (both here and WP:TV) whether it provides a reliable way to perform an automatic routine calculation on a reliable source. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * i'd have gone with a spreadsheet, personally. Could also be done as a CSV file and some R code for others to verify. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See I'd totally avoid a spreadsheet as it is not easily repeatable when it come to automatically slurping web pages and is likely to be more error prone. But I can definitely munge the data into a CSV - but yes the whole point is for code (and I'm not too fussed on what language) to do the verification/calculation. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point calculating an average for all Doctor Who episodes, as I think that number's meaningless. However, I agree with season/series averages, as long as all the averages are checked. T ed  E dwards  10:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Much like the christmas averages as well - I don't expect them to be used here. I added both of them for two reasons - out of curiosity and to further test the method I was using to define a group of episodes to average. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Code is available here - and it is live here.- please feel free to submit or suggest improvements. I am going to later suggest over at WP:TVOVERVIEW that the rule be amended to something like "If average viewership numbers are included, they should be adequately sourced or routinely calculated with a public method approved by consensus and not the result of your own private calculations. Sourcing or reproducibility is crucial for accuracy, and to help other editors quickly respond to numerical vandalism". I would also welcome any input to this suggestion before I make it. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This whole "original research" thing has always annoyed me about Wikipedia when it comes to calculating averages. Everybody knows how to calculate an average and if several people do it and get the same answer then it's obviously 100% genuine. It's just a number. Plus, where there IS a source, that average in the source was probably calculated by some random person since the mean calculation is universally known. It's ridiculous if you ask me. I think, as long as a group of people can verify the numbers calulated from the data provided, the series averages (discounting specials) should be included in the overview table. 86.183.69.103 (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but consider why we use "this whole original research thing". As I said earlier: "just the thought that if a random vandal changes any of the averages without a reason, and the edit is missed, then the incorrect info stands without a source". Especially for a show with as many seasons and therefore as many season averages as Doctor Who; however, Dresken's script and work on the averages should be just fine. There's guidelines that exist that we all don't think should apply, but they're there for a reason. --  Alex TW 10:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Additionally, I've spotted a mistake in the overview on note "d". Entirely my fault, sorry. Davison regenerated in the 6th, not 5th serial. 86.183.69.103 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All fixed! Sharp eye. --  Alex TW 14:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I feel that adding the average views information has support here and the method has had no real opposition. So I am going to proceed with the BOLD option next - and see where that takes it. If you hadn't seen it, I raised the MOS change here: Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Television. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Episodes 6-8 of Series 10
Episodes 6-8 of Series 10 will be a three parter they aren't separate stories. Source: http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/doctor-who/news/a823765/doctor-who-series-10-three-parter-monks/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.0.27 (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the talk page at Talk:Doctor Who (series 10), where Steven Moffat clearly quotes in Doctor Who Magazine that they are separate stories, simply following the same arc. Cheers. --  Alex TW 15:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Article trims
I have to start by offering a great big apology to for getting the order of the BRD wrong. Now IMO the trims were beneficial. If readers want more info about the various series and their Doctors that is what the links are for. The previous version has a bit of WP:POV as it is one view of each of thoses eras - there are numerous other items that could be included or removed for that matter. There is also that old "In v Out" universe stuff but I think that is minimal. While I prefer the shorter version if consensus is to keep the longer version that is fine. Again many apologies to GL. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely keep it short - articles point is clearly a list of episodes. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I offer by way of contrast to the idea of 'just the list' List_of_battlecruisers_of_the_Royal_Navy which is a featured list with summary text in each section, and a substantial lede. There is a narrative to the way the series panned out over the years, the change in frequency and format and a few sentences at the start of each section give context to the table content, which is of itself mostly dates and numbers. We can only presume that readers are looking to find an episode somewhere in relation to others within this article, and the summaries act as navigational points across the article and could help a reader know if the series is the one they are interested in. Further, the actual additional content does not unbalance the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * An important distinction: there is sourced details in each of the short blurbs for the battlecruisers. While I am certain you can source some details, the level of detail in each that was trimmed is going to be very hard to do so, or it is going to be imbalanced towards the revived series. A sentence or two at most to help orient a reader ("This is when X became the new Doctor", "This is when so-and-so was a companion", "This is that series about the cracks in the universe") is good, but any more is overkill. --M ASEM (t) 06:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, as the editor who removed the content, I did so because I believe that it's unnecessary both here and in the season articles, where the primary objective of this article is to exist as a list. I recommend taking a read of all of the summaries given; personally, I don't believe that the regular reader cares much for who returned as a producer of each season, or the script editors, or the fact that "This season was moved to a Monday schedule" and "The series was moved to Wednesdays". At the same time, I didn't delete the summaries at the start of each Doctor-section of "The X Doctor was portrayed by Y." Also, why do some seasons have a summary above the table, but some do not? There's a lack of consistency there. As for the edit, I removed the content while specifically declaring it a WP:BOLD edit, as I did assume that it would likely be reverted, which I've no issues with, hence my own revert as well. It did start this discussion, after all. --  Alex TW 07:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As the one doing the initial revert, I am in agreement with GraemeLeggett here. "Keep it short" is a nice idea in principle but lists, especially featured ones, should be useful in itself without forcing readers to read all linked articles (see also WP:FL? #3(a)). That's why they are superior to categories. A short paragraph that describes a Doctor's tenure (like the one for Hartnell) are helpful to readers who which to get a short summary of the serials without having to read the season articles themselves while being short enough to not impede the list's primary function. That said, I'm not averse to removing some of the text, especially when it concerns producers and script editors (unless really important). Maybe as a compromise we can keep the short paragraphs introducing each Doctor and describing their tenure as well as short summaries of the season where available (such as for season 8) while removing the paragraphs about the producers? Regards  So Why  09:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Doctor Who serials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205221954/http://drwhoguide.com/ to http://www.drwhoguide.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205221954/http://drwhoguide.com/ to http://www.drwhoguide.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

add to fifth doctor
peter Davidson reprises his role in the 2007 CiN special "Time Crash" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.95.248 (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * ❌ Only a minisode. And where would this info go anyway? T ed  E dwards  09:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Season vs. series
Why does Wikipedia list the new Doctor Who (2005 to present) list each year's collection of episodes as a series, why the original Doctor Who refers to them as seasons? Is this an error, or did the BBC do this? If it is an error, please edit the article.2605:E000:AA1F:E400:7890:9545:BFD:5CA1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * From the FAQ: Most sites, such as BBC's Classic Episode Guide, OG, and A Brief History, use the term "season" for the classic "series". DonQuixote (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also see WikiProject Doctor Who/Manual of style. --  Alex TW 02:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Future Episode Info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic Probe (talk • contribs) 07:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Story Numbers in Series 9 are Inconsistent
The stories, as numbered by BBC, include multiple episodes of a continuing narrative. However, in series 9, some numbering follows the episodes not the stories.

Here's what I'm thinking that needs to be updated:

256 --> 256a, 257 --> 256b (To make the two episodes one story.)

258a --> 257a, 258b --> 257b (To propagate the updated numbers.)

259 --> 258 (To propagate the updated numbers.)

260 --> 259a, 261 --> 259b, 262 --> 259c (To make the three episodes one story. At the end of the "Face The Raven" episode, it clearly says "To Be Continued.")

263 --> 260 (To propagate the updated numbers.)

264 --> 261 (To propagate the updated numbers.)

And the numbering in the Series 10 needs to be updated (subtracted by 3) consistent with the new series 9 numbering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lev* (talk • contribs) 19:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please cite a reliable source to support the change. DonQuixote (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Television ratings graph
I was asked to create this ratings graph for the Doctor Who series that aired from 2005 onwards. I am not watching the show, so i need to ask: is there any non-WP:JDL reason why this template shouldn't be transcluded? Does the exclusion of seasons 1-26 and several special episodes make this graph misleading? Please let me know, so i can request a speedy deletion. -- (Radiphus ) 21:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting this discussion,, as yes, a discussion was held at two months ago, started by the same editor who requested that you make this template. , you can see there was consensus not to include a graph, so requesting one outside of the article here can only be assumed to be of bad faith from you. --  Alex TW 01:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i have requested a speedy deletion. I should have started this discussion prior to the creation of the template, as I was sharing the same concerns. -- (Radiphus ) 02:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

War Doctor In Series 7 Specials
I propose that the War Doctor be mentioned in the comments regarding the series 7 specials block, as there is no mention of John Hurt as the doctor on this page, even though he played the doctor for a guest appearance with appearances in other episodes surrounding the special, The Day Of The Doctor. CCb27 07:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CannyCapybara27 (talk • contribs)
 * This is a place simply to list the serials. What you request is a place for Doctor Who (2013 specials). --  Alex TW 08:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Shada
What will happen with Shada now...? The whole purpose of the DVD release next month is to complete the serial with animation - just like some missing episodes. Should it therefore be officially numbered? Or the dates changed to December 2017...? Or just left as it is? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It should probably be left as is until a major source, such as Doctor Who Magazine, makes a big deal of it. DonQuixote (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the table should be left as is. While it is nice that this has happened it won't be an "official broadcast" of a serial. Some mention (maybe as a footnote) should be possible though. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with the above. Unless we get a source explicitly stating that it's now considered an official story and all of the story numbers have been pushed forward... (which I doubt) --  Alex TW 00:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference with missing episodes is that, unlike Shada, they all had an original broadcast before they had to be reconstructed. Shada was never broadcast in the first place. So I too agree with the above. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 09:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I guess it is an unheard of scenario. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Since when did we need sources to justify story numbers? I see no citations. Shada is a story regardless of whether it was broadcast or not, therefore it, logically, must be assigned a number. I suggest pushing forward the numbers. AnyOldBiscuit (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * From the lede: The numbering scheme used here reflects the current internal practice of describing "Planet of the Dead" (2009) as the 200th story, used in the 407th issue of Doctor Who Magazine.[6] DonQuixote (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I concede and agree. Until there is a major source stating that Shada is story 109, it is fair enough that the Wikipedia page should not change it until then. AnyOldBiscuit (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We have a source which numbers Shada as story 109 - and that is the Region 1 DVDs. I propose that all numbers be shifted forwards. AnyOldBiscuit (talk) 20:17, 05 December 2017 (UTC)

Episode 253
Why is this episode considered part of Series 9, rather than Series 8, especially when it was filmed during the filming of Series 8? Series 9 didn't even start filming until January 2015. --184.64.110.38 (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not considered part of Series 9, we simply list it in the same table for convenience, instead of having to create a separate table for every Christmas special. However, the main reason is that it was included in the Series 9 home media release, rather than the Series 8 release, hence its listing in the Series 9 table. --  Alex TW 11:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If the episode was included in the Series 9 Blu-ray set, then I suppose that's a good enough reason, even if I don't agree with BBC's decision to do that. --184.64.110.38 (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest that Last Christmas be moved to Series 8. Aside from the DVD release, there is no reason why it is in Series 8. The same goes for The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe - which actually belongs in Series 6. AnyOldBiscuit (talk) 20:32, 05 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your suggestions have been noted. Please read the previous discussions on the topic, and build a case that supports your position to overthrow the current consensus on the topic. --  Alex TW 22:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

More story numbering queries
It should be said that there is also debate as to whether "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are 1 2-part story or 2 separate, and whether "Extremis", "The Pyramid at the End of the World" and "The Lie of the Land" is 1 3-part story or 3 separate stories in a trilogy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnyOldBiscuit (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not anymore there isn't. Both of these have long been discussed and the CONSENSUS is what is currently displayed, in that they are all separate. --  Alex TW 22:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no source, and consensus does not mean unanimity. Therefore, it is up for debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnyOldBiscuit (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend that you read the discussions listed in the banner at Talk:Doctor Who (series 9). There were already five discussions over the span of ten months, where sources were listed a-plenty. Debate it if you want, you're more than welcome to, but I can guarantee that you won't find anyone willing to revive the discussion when the consensus is clear. --  Alex TW 22:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing I can find on the Series 9 talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnyOldBiscuit (talk • contribs) 12:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "the discussions listed in the banner" --  Alex TW 12:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. I now agree that Heaven Sent and Hell Bent are separate stories. I also now agree that the Series 10 "monk trilogy" is 3 separate stories. --AnyOldBiscuit (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Shada number
Shada is story 109, as listed in the Region 1 DVD releases. I propose that the number 109 be given to Shada. --AnyOldBiscuit (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a dispute whether to count Shada or not (which is mentioned on the main page) - the current numbering reflects the number of Broadcast stories [as advertised when Planet of the Dead was announced as the 200th)] - and whatever else Shada is, it was quite definitely not broadcast. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:69CB:B885:9CE8:6E6E (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Therefore, the numbering system must be changed to make Shada story 109. --AnyOldBiscuit (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The numbering practise is described in the series lede. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The numbering practise described in the lede is unreasonable and should be altered to accommodate Shada. --AnyOldBiscuit (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to explain why it's unreasonable. TR-BT (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure what I actually think of this thought. But should Shada even be included on this list? I mean it would surprise me if any other episode list out there included an incompletely filmed, unaired episode. I know it was completed with animation this year, but does that put it more in line with Scream of the Shalka, Infinite Quest and Dreamland (that also aren't on this list) than regular completed and aired episodes? Like maybe it should be a footnote on the Season, rather than a row in the table. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I also realised for the numbering, the most recent episode indicates the production team still do not count Shada. Episode 1 of the Tenth Planet was indicated to be 709 episodes ago at the begining of Twice Upon a Time. If Shada was counted, it would have had to have said 713 episodes ago. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Twice Upon a Time
Surely Twice upon a time should be put in Series 11, not 10 - several discussions on where to put Christmas specials have created the consensus that they go with the series that matches DVD boxset that they were included with (which is how every other Christmas special is listed) - and the Series 10 DVD set did not include Twice upon a time, so it should not be in series 10. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:69CB:B885:9CE8:6E6E (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently, "Twice" hasn't been included in any boxset. See "The Husbands of River Song" . DonQuixote (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * what about 'The Husbands of River Song'? - that was included in the series 9 boxset (or at least, the one I've got) 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:69CB:B885:9CE8:6E6E (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake on "Husbands". DonQuixote (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would currently err on the side of no rush and leave it where it is until it is announced in a boxset. It might not be included in one, or maybe it will be part of a "complete" complete season 10 boxset. I'm personally putting off buying Season 10 until I know what is actually happening with TUaT - but at this stage who knows. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with on holding off until we know more - in the case that it's not released in any season boxset, then we can fall back on the fact that the special was filmed within Series 10's production block. --  Alex TW 15:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Doctor Who
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Doctor Who. --  Alex TW 06:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2018

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

The result of the move request was: procedural close a split has already been initiated, so it makes the most sense to match at this point. No prejudice against any editor immediately opening an RM for an alternative title. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials → List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) – Updating and splitting her discussion at Talk:Doctor Who, admin-protected. --  Alex TW 02:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). TonyBallioni (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * as this is a featured list that is move protected, I am starting an RM on the list talk page itself to allow for wider community feedback. This is only in reference to the page title, not any proposed split which may have consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What? A discussion has already unfolded to split and move the article and the WP:CONSENSUS is clear to move it. How am I meant to conclude the split? I see no issue with this. --  Alex TW 04:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ratings Graph
One of those ratings graphs/chart things at the bottom of the page underneath the episodes list would be good on this page now that it just shows the revived series episodes. If someone could create one to show every single episode in the same way it's displayed on pages such as List of Game of Thrones episodes it'd be good...(I haven't got a clue how to). TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before, and the consensus was to not include the graph. All that is different with the split is the difference in which episodes are displayed - the rest has stayed the same. --  Alex TW 22:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

What is "Al"?
What's the last column, with the heading "Al"? There's a citation linking to a ratings website, should the column just be called "Ratings"? Are these scores out of 100? Is an "Al" of 81 like having an 81% on Rotten Tomatoes?

What's really odd though is it's assumed "Al" is self-explanatory while the "Prod. code" column has markup to explain that "Prod." is short for "Production". Maybe the "Al" column should get the same markup?

24.140.237.127 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * AI is the British system of Appreciation Index. Perhaps we can make this more obvious in the season articles (and hence, this article). --  Alex TW 02:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Links
Link #11 (Doctor Who to be filmed in HD) has been removed from the Wayback Machine, link is dead. 46.244.132.241 (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Intro paragraphs
Please see the discussion I started at Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989). (No need to repeat that conversation here, just pointing it out, as it affects this page and that one.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

I believe that this is crucial in standardising the Doctor Who numbering system and in moving away from a more subjective system, to one that can be more closely agreed upon. Any suggestions are welcome, and a full amended list can be provided on request. This is a copy of a section on the 1963-1989 talk page for ease of access.

AnyOldBiscuit (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced info
The info about the first episode of the upcoming series has been presented with no sourcing whatsoever. IMO it should be removed until at least one WP:RS is presented. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am seeing rumours that Captain Jack "may return" but there is nothing definite. Looks like we are entering the silly season for the next series :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Folks the item in the RT is nothing more than wishes from interviews with various actors. There is nothing in it about what will actually occur. No casting, no plots, no episode names. WikiP depends on reliable sources not fan hopefulness. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be quite happy for some of this to be true but without genuine WP:RS references it is just rumours and encyclopaedias can't be based on rumours, even ones that would make me happy. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please clarify the rules please?
Can I get someone to clarify what the rules of wikipedia are please? I noticed the FL page, and noted some of the comments on it. Now the link at the top of the page says "or improve the article by being bold" - but I have tried this and it was reverted because I'm an IP, and people don't think an IP can actually help wikipedia. Can you please let me know what I should do to try and help wikiedpia? Or should I just not bother? 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:6599:3B2E:8DEE:562C (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * unexplained content removal
 * Please explain your edits.
 * ok then mr "auto revert cause it's an IP"
 * Please assume good faith and don't make edits/edit summaries out of spite (WP:POINT). DonQuixote (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Disputed edit and proposal
I noticed the disputed edit removed information from the List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) article that talked about seasons that the article does not even have anymore, since the article was split and that information now resides at List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989). Currently, the leads of both articles are a copy of each other.

I actually agree with the IP's removal (less with the attitude) and propose 2 changes:
 * 1) Lead section - the leads of each article only address the seasons the article itself has the list of episodes for.
 * 2) Series overview section - the seasons shown in the table are only the seasons the article itself has the list of episodes for with an added hatnote pointing to the other seasons. --Gonnym (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The first point was previously discussed but never implemented. (They're not actually a copy, just a transclusion.) The second point I disagree with; see List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) and List of The Simpsons episodes as a functioning example. The series overview should display the entirety of the series, irrelevant of where the episodes are located. --  Alex TW 13:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Any reason why Alex? It's a whole lot of content to scroll through (especially in a mobile view) that isn't relevant at all to the reader. If I came to an article that talks about seasons 1-10 why would I care about information about seasons 11-20? --Gonnym (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it wasn't implemented. For the second bit, it's all the same series, so the series overview should reflect the entire series. Splitting it gives the view that the classic eras and revived eras are separate programmes; they are not. Same for The Simpsons; the split was mirrored from that example. --  Alex TW 10:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that reasoning, was just wondering if there was anything more substantial behind it. There is no more reason for anyone to think they are two separate programs, then there is now for anyone checking the 2 articles. My point it, if the consensus was to split the article, without thinking the readers will mistake the two articles for two different shows, why would splitting the overview do that? Also, a hatnote should really solve any issues here "For seasons x-y see List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)" (or similar). --Gonnym (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You'd think that there's no reason (I would hope there is no reason too), but the issue is that there is, though. If we present two separate series overviews, they appear as two separate series. Keeping a series-wide component to the two articles is what presents the two articles as belonging to the same series; the more we separate them, the more separate they appear. And the hatnotes already exist. --  Alex TW 02:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll comment bellow as the discussion on this issue continued there. --Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the lede must be changed to better reflect the actual content of the page. Not just because it's too long, but because it is incredibly impractical to consider the ledes of the two pages linked like this. What? Is someone who edits the lede for 2005 expected to know that they should also edit the original show's lede? Moreover, the discussion of the series' history prior to the cancellation has essentially nothing to do with the post-2005 series. The repeated information should be cut down significantly, and Seasons 1-27 in the list Series Overview need to be removed. lethargilistic (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The first point was previously discussed but never implemented. (They're not actually a copy, just a transclusion.) I don't know why it wasn't implemented. Jumped in and didn't read, then? And you gave no reason for the removal in the series overview. "need to be removed"? Why? --  Alex TW 02:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm only stating my opinion, testy one. I did read, although I admit I did not realize that "translcusion" meant it was being treated as a template, so my interpretation of needing to update both is moot. The reason that information should be removed is because it has nothing to do with the 2005 series and it's massive. Perhaps the full season list can be a collapsed table on the Doctor Who page, but it shouldn't be on both of these pages. What was the purpose of splitting the page if it is going to be overloaded with all of this frontmatter that is irrelevant to the revived series? Just ask yourself if somebody (a non-fan, perhaps) is ever going to come to a page labelled (2005-present) to learn "For the first two seasons of Doctor Who and most of the third (1963–1966), each episode carries its own title; the show displays no titles for overarching serials until The Savages, at which point the episodic titles cease" or "The First Doctor remained for the first two serials of season 4. The Second Doctor featured for the remainder of the season from the third serial, The Power of the Daleks." It's beyond impractical. lethargilistic (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the series overview is a transclusion too. What does it matter if it has nothing to do with the 2005 series? It's a series overview, not a "production era" overview, and hence displays the contents of a series. The section is labeled "Series overview"; Series 1 to 11 is not the whole series, Season 1 to Series 11 is. Do you have the same issue with the overview for The Simpsons? If not, why not that but just this? If the lead is updated, then the onlly "overloaded frontmatter" there is is the series overview. If you want to go back to the discussion to update the leads, it's archived. You keep talking about the lead but nothing's stopping you from updating it, since there was already a discussion and agreement on it. It was just never implemented because... I don't know? Busy lives? --  Alex TW 02:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Simpsons doesn't have a break in the middle of it that completely changed the format of the show, so the description of the episodes on the main page is still directly relevant to the episodes on the earlier list. And, yes, breaking it up by production era makes this a production era overview. If we were to expand the information in this list to, hypothetically, make it a featured list, we wouldn't include stuff about the earlier Doctors. I tried to find the discussion you're referring to, to understand exactly what was agreed to, but was unable to.
 * I just threw this together quickly (you can tell because "program," lol), but why doesn't the page look more like this? lethargilistic (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't have an actual break (bar the typical four-month season break). But it's still the same show between the two articles, isn't it? Just like Doctor Who is still the same show between the two articles. They're exactly the same, regardless of the length of the breaks. Splitting it would make a production era overview, but that's not what it is. It's a series overview, by header, by name, by template. If you wanted to split it, then you would need a wide consensus to do so, not just two agreeing editors. So, we can talk here as much as we like, and make up our dream pages and all of our wishes in our sandboxes, or an RFC could be held if it's truly necessary to display the two eras as two completely different programmes. --  Alex TW 03:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference between the Simpsons list and this is night and day to me. The Simpsons never stopped and has the same format. Doctor Who stopped and came back as basically a completely different show and there's no reason to bind these articles together so closely. If you think this needs wider discussion, then we should invite that wider discussion instead of pounding the table because the vote is only 2-1 right this second. lethargilistic (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why further opinions are required. In my opinion, there is every need to bind them so closely, because they're the same show and continuity, regardless of production, and thus we shouldn't be displaying them as completely separate programs. It's only one table. (Do note that discussions are never based on votes.) I'll also see if I can find the lead discussion for you; it may have been on another page... --  Alex TW 04:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For me, it does not matter if this is a case of a "break" between two different shows, or a show with a huge amount of seasons needing to be split. Once a page has been split, the page itself is not a series list-of-episodes, but a list-of-episodes of only a subset of seasons. This would mean that even for a Simpsons type show my argument would include. Where does the whole series overview go? In cases with split lists, it should return back to the series article, which is the most basic area of such information. In this article's case, it should go at Doctor Who. --Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, okay so I know why this was split even if it looks a little messy now (to be fair, being so used to it being one whole article, for it to suddenly be split is something to get used to) but the comparisons to the Simpsons would make more sense here, and be more acceptable here being split if you included the same line at the start of both articles: 'This list has been split, for improved performance' - simple, effective and unquestionable. Just a thought there.2A02:C7F:1405:B100:CD49:BCF0:4DC3:9582 (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)