Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 2

Series 2 working titles
Apparently the latest DWM has listed some working titles for Series 2 stories. Should these be put on the article as 'knowledge so far', or do we wait till we have full confirmation and their order in the series? Radagast 12:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * My view is that we should at least wait until the order is known. --khaosworks 14:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * That being said, here's something that we can fill in and transfer over when the time is right -

''Thirteen episodes, expected to be 45 minutes each (writers are to be Mark Gatiss, Steven Moffat, Matt Jones, Tom MacRae and Toby Whithouse as well as Russell T Davies). Information below subject to change.''


 * 175 - Title Unknown (Russell T. Davies)
 * 176 - Tooth and Claw (working title) (Russell T. Davies)
 * 177 - School Reunion (working title) (Toby Whithouse)
 * 178 - Title Unknown (Steven Moffatt)
 * 179 - Title Unknown (Tom MacRae)
 * 180 - Title Unknown (Tom MacRae)
 * 181 - Title Unknown {Mark Gatiss}
 * 182 - The Satan Pit (working title) (Matt Jones)
 * 183 - Title Unknown (Matt Jones)
 * 184 - Title Unknown (Russell T. Davies)
 * 185 - Title Unknown (Stephen Fry)
 * 186 - Army of Ghosts (working title) (Russell T. Davies)
 * 187 - Title Unknown (Russel T. Davies)


 * I don't see why we can't put that on the page right now. Don't forget that we didn't know the title of Bad Wolf until after a couple of episodes of series 1 had been transmitted. -- Avaragado 22:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Point taken. I suppose I was just concerned about people building up a whole bunch of stubs. We should watch out for that, since these are "working titles". But I'll place the list up. --khaosworks 22:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to add Stephen Fry as one of the writers. This has now been confirmed -- HeyWayne 08:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Tennant confirmed?
Has David Tennant been confirmed for series 3? According to The People on 3 July he's signed for three series, but does that mean he will actually do all three? According to Outpost Gallifrey, he said in an earlier TV Times interview that he would "wait and see what happens" before doing series 3. Martpol 6 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)

The Satan Pit
If you google for it, you'll find mentions of it as Matt Jones's working title, though I haven't seen any hints that it is the first episode. Tim! (talk) 8 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)


 * Yeah. We've known about The Satan Pit as a working title for some time now; I was querying where it was confirmed that it was Episode 1. --khaosworks July 8, 2005 08:30 (UTC)


 * It hasn't ;) Tim! (talk) 8 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)


 * Doctor Who bosses are looking to cast a well-know face in the role of Lucifer in an episode called The Satan Pit. Chris Evans, Billie Piper's Ex Husband, is being considered. Source: http://www.itn.co.uk/news/1006370.html HeyWayne 07:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Cause he's got Red hair? PaulHammond 11:24, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Any further details?
Would it be appropriate to list any further known details with the new season stories? For instance, we know for a fact that Anthony Stewart Head will be playing a headmaster in the 2006 story "School Reunion" -- is it appropriate to add that here? Or are we just sticking to story titles, then? --Jay (Histrion) 02:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * We're sticking to the story titles for the moment - the problem is that these are all really working titles, so that's why I hesitate to commit articles to them. It may be pertinent to have a brief "Guest Stars" paragraph opening the 2006 series section, though. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:16, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently, the BBC has registered torchwood.org.uk and torchwood.net, leading to speculation that the term Torchwood -- mentioned in "Bad Wolf" during the "Weakest Link" game segments -- will feature in the next season of the series. -- HeyWayne 08:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In the August issue of the Doctor Who magazine, Russell T Davies mentions in his "Production Notes" column that the word that was mentioned in one of the episodes in Season 1 and to be repeated in the forthcoming Christmas special will be an anagram. On a personal note, Santa and Satan is too much of a coincidence to be ignored -- HeyWayne 08:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Torchwood is an anagram of "Doctor Who". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is rumoured that Shaun Dingwell may return for a cameo apperance in Season 2. Zoe Wanamaker has been seen on set, presumably returning as Cassandra(?) and Anthony Stewart Head is now rumoured to be "The Master". It's all go isn't it? -- HeyWayne 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Er..I think that he has been confirmed as playing a master, not The Master. Hence the rumours! DavidFarmbrough 16 August 2005 (12:30 BST)


 * Pretty much. I mean, the line "I am the Headmaster, and you will obey me!" is too delicious to let go of. Even if Head isn't the Master, it'll still be fun to hear something like that. Cassandra is also likely, because the BBC Wales on-set report said that they were filming in "the year 5 billion". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Crikey you moved quick on updating the list of Season 2 episodes. At this moment in time I am just getting to grips with Wiki, will probably work on my profile first before even contemplating doing anything major. Hope you don't mind me just supplying you with snippets of information in the meantime. Though they are easy to come by. Many Thanks -- HeyWayne 08:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Anthony Stewart Head's character is apparently called "Mr Finch". Any relation to Mark Benton's character "Clive Finch" in "Rose" I wonder? We know RTD has a thing for the "Tyler" name, maybe he has a thing for the "Finch" name too? Just a thought -- HeyWayne 08:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * They were never named as Finch on screen in the end - I think they were just 'Clive', 'Caroline' etc in the end credits, too. There *was* a 'Finch's' named in the episode, but it was the butcher where Jackie suggested Rose went and looked for a job. Angmering 16:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The BBC Press Office has officially confirmed K9's appearance on Doctor Who. Source: [BBC Press Office] -- HeyWayne ( Talk • Contributions ) 09:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool. Updating entries. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * With the long slate of episode details in that release, it looks like School Reunion could benefit from its own article... I'll probably get that going sometime today, if nobody beats me to it. Radagast 14:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * The only reason it hasn't been done is that we don't know if the title has been finalized yet, or if it's only a working title. What do people think, though? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:50, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * If the title's in the BBC release, that's likely quite final. The article's up, BTW. :) Radagast 15:08, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * But it's not in the BBC release. We know that it's the school episode from the description, but the title isn't mentioned. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops! You're right. Well, if that ends up changing, we can always move the article... sorry for the presumption. Radagast 15:34, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

According to "Outpost Gallifrey", the rumoured title for Steven Moffat's forthcoming story is "The Girl in the Fireplace". Can anyone collaborate upon this? -- HeyWayne ( Talk • Contributions ) 08:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Done, although I have my reservations about the strength of the rumour... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The idea of official and unofficial rumours is wonderfully bizarre :) Tim! (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

CiN Mini-episode
See here.

We've yet to find out if this is canon or not, but it will presumably have David Tennant and Billie Piper at least, and be set somewhere in relation to PotW/tCI. How do we list this? Radagast 16:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Depends on the length, I think. Thoughts?--Sean Black Talk 16:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's wait and see what it actually is, first before we decide how to deal with it. It could be just something non-canon like The Curse of Fatal Death which can be dealt with in its own article without the need to list it among the others. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm almost afraid it'll be great, and fit perfectly in the narrative between "Parting" and "Christmas Invasion". Afraid because that will mean that the justifications for snubbing Dimensions in Time will start to look thin, and we'll be left with the real reason we don't want to count it: it's rubbish. —Josiah Rowe 19:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, now. "It's completely cod-flipping insane" is a fine reason to expunge it to the depths that also contiains "In a Fix with the Sontarans" and those books where K-9 works for the Time Lords.. :).--Sean Black Talk 19:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Does flipped cod go well with pickled gherkins? ;) —Josiah Rowe 19:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It has been rumoured that the mini-episode is about 15 minutes long and features some special guests. I suggest you all wait until it is aired before you decide what you want to do with this episode - HeyWayne ( Talk • Contributions ) 15:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree with Khaosworks here, lets wait and see what it is first. I have a feeling that this will probably sit outside of the traditional DW canon. Especially as I think that "The Christmas Invasion" will probably follow on directly after "The Parting of the Ways". It has already been suggested that "special" guests will appear - which makes me think it is going to be a "fun" episode, though I don't think it could be as dire as "Dimensions in Time"...though time will tell - HeyWayne ( Talk • Contributions ) 09:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Shaun Lyon, a quite reliable source, has stated on Outpost Gallifrey's forum:
 * "By the way, for those that think it's 15 minutes... it's not. It's 3 1/2 minutes."

Another poster in the same thread (which is in the spoiler section, although it doesn't have any spoilers in it) quoted a UK TV magazine as referring to the scene as a "two-hander", which indicates that there won't be "special guests".

And I hate to bring this up again, but if this "mini-episode" is included, are we really justified in excluding DiT? Can we continue to keep it out just because it's crap (or, as Sean says, "completely cod-flipping insane")?—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It need only stay for another 10 days — if it turns out to be 3.5 minutes it should go, otherwise we can decide afterwards. Tim! (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Right. We just can't know yet, especially with the erratic scheduling of CiD.--Sean|Bla ck 23:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah - I see this is well discussed already. None of the Children in Need specials have ever been anything other than just a bit of fun for charity - if we include them, we have to include "Curse of the Fatal Death", which means that Rowan Atkinson, Richard E Grant, Joanna Lumley as bona-fide previous doctors. This one will be just the same, but the only unusual thing about it is that it happens to be the first time we see the new Doctor on screen. I can agree with waiting until next weekend to see if this 3.5 minute piece is canon or not - but I'm absolutely sure that it won't be. PaulHammond 10:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I'm not so sure. There are two questions to be answered when it comes to canonicity: the intention of the production team, and the attitude of the audience.  "Dimensions in Time", for all its godawfulness, was intended by John Nathan-Turner to be, at least in part, a "real" Doctor Who episode — IIRC he petititioned the BBC to let it be given a production code like all previous Doctor Who stories.  However, the audience's responses to "Dimensions" fell into two categories: people either loathed it unconditionally, or dismissed it as "a harmless bit of fun for charity".  (I've never seen anyone defend it on its artistic merits.)


 * "Curse of the Fatal Death" (which was made for Comic Relief, not Children in Need) wasn't really ever meant to be an official continuation of the Doctor Who narrative — it was meant to be a humorous and affectionate sketch for charity, and that's how it was received. We don't yet know what the tone of the upcoming 3.5 minute scene is like, or how seriously the production team took it.  I could see it going either way: this could be a real dramatic link between "The Parting of the Ways" and "The Christmas Invasion", or it could be just a bit of fun the production team agreed to to blow off steam from their punishing schedule, akin to that sketch Tom Baker, Mary Tamm and John Leeson did for the BBC Christmas party.  Time will tell... it always does. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's aired (and posted online). Looks canon to me, as it fills the gap quite nicely between the preceding and following episodes. But: So, does it merit an article? A section in with The Christmas Invasion? Something else? Your thoughts? Radagast 00:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It has no official title (oh, boy).
 * It's about 5 minutes long (including credits).
 * There's very little plot, and no resolution. So, not a 'story' in the proper sense.


 * We're talking about it over in Talk:The Christmas Invasion. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's a prelude to The Christmas Invasion - it explains why we are arriving on Earth on Christmas Eve and not the Planet Barcelona. PaulHammond 20:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I have spotted it on p2p several times as '173½ - Children in need special'. . . this seems a reasonable compromise in terms of numbering, since it doesn't deserve a number of its own, due to its brevity. While it may or may not be regarded as canon, at least it doesn't seem to break any canon. I've adjusted the numbering scheme to fit both the most common returns on p2p, and the BBC's policy of listing the 2005/2006 episodes as single, self contained episodes. --Tooltroll 07:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not significant that the BBC has a list of episodes. The clue's in the title of this article. This is a list of serials. And apparently the numbering that you changed is conventional among other fan sites/magazines. There's discussion of this in a section below. You've also only done half a job — the numbers appear on all the episode pages, and other places like the list of DVD releases. --KJBracey 07:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Suit yourself. My point is that the BBC is no longer listing them as serials, but as individual episodes, with not even 'part 1, part 2', etc., to indicate story arcs. If, as has been pointed out, the whole 2005 season comprises its own serial, it could be argued that the whole season should be listed as '161 - The Doctor Returns', or some such. The fan sites and magazines might have an idealized notion of numbering conventions, but out here in the real world things are a tad messier and I was merely trying to reflect what a majority of users have adopted (as seen from my perspective.) As far as doing half the job: My bad, but I would have got to it eventually. --Tooltroll 12:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, of course the BBC isn't listing them as serials, because they're going back to the individual episode titles: however, that doesn't mean that suddenly An Unearthly Child is going to be split into a 4-episode count instead of one serial. The new series numbering really has little to do with the old one, especially without individual production codes, so the way this list is organised is to reflect the continuity of storytelling rather than a slavish season/episode production number.


 * Secondly, p2p isn't a good gauge, since many of them insist on calling it Season 27, Season 28, too, which is also patently against the BBC calling it Series 1, Series 2. Also, "majority" is kind of tough to gauge and verify. The major fan sites like Outpost Gallifrey and the Doctor Who Reference Guide have both gone along the route of numbering the stories as a continuous line rather than suddenly switch from stories to episodes, and we're offering a unified front with them as far as that's concerned. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're getting at. P2P users are mindless sheeple like the rest of the human race, generally :) I've seen new episodes listed as 'Dr. Who 2006 s2e4' for instance, (that would imply a 2007 air-date). The changes I proposed were the p2p hits returned with a compatible (3 digit sequential) numbering format, as opposed to the 28x02/s06e09/2005x12/2006s2e2 etc., crap. How, then, do you propose to label 'The Parting Of the Ways'? 'Doctor Who - 170a - Bad Wolf Part 2 (The Parting of the Ways).avi'? Clumsy. To be precise: For those of us who are trying to amass a collection of episodes/serials, each of the episodes/serials must be numbered sequentially, or edited together to form a single file, if we want them to play sequentially. I'd rather forgo appending letters, or '1 of 2, 2 of 2/Part I, Part II' etc., to filenames, especially when the title in the credits gives no indication of inclusion in a story arc (This does NOT apply to the older serials with different titles, which are available pre-assembled). (I've got it! The whole darn thing's a story arc! I'll just edit ALL the episodes together into one massive 40 GB .avi, and title it '001 - Doctor Who'! Problem solved! :) ) For good or ill, it will be the p2p users and those of us with digital recorders that will need (and establish) a logical, consistent numbering scheme to archive our material, and it won't rely on what assorted fan sites say (and will probably supplant thier numbering schemes, since it'll be the most widespread); it'll conform to how the pieces are packaged. The old episodes with discrete titles are available (on p2p and DVD) as multiple episode serials in a single package (p2p by filename, DVD by packaging), as are the later serials that shared a title and appended 'part 1, 2', etc. The new (2005/2006) episodes are only available as discrete episodes (p2p) or by the entire season (DVD), not as a collection of one- and two-part serials. I doubt that 'Bad Wolf' and 'Parting of the Ways' will ever be released (or assembled by third parties) as a 'packaged' serial, for instance. Additionally, there's the BBC's shift from 4-6+ part full serials, to the 2005/2006 format of single episodes with the occasional two-parter thrown in. Thus my contention that my proposed numbering is more consistent with the realities and practicalities of storage media. --Tooltroll 14:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa, defensive, much? All I'm saying is there's no consistent usage even among p2p people. Certainly they aren't any official standard. Numbering isn't made for the convenience of filenames. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, did that come off as defensive? I'm afraid I had my tongue planted too firmly in my cheek . . . that, and I tend towards verbal diarrhea. I just think, in this digital age, the numbering will (and perhaps should) evolve towards the convenience of filenames, as more and more people use their PCs, DVRs, TIVOs, etc. to build/maintain their media libraries. Just tryin' to think ahead! --Tooltroll 16:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You may well have a point in the long run, but since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball we have to go with usage that's established in accessible citations, not thousands of P2P files on dozens of sites. Besides, it's also probable that in the not-too-long run the BBC's Interactive Media Player and its descendants will establish "official" filenames for watching Doctor Who on your computer, and I bet you anything they won't have any continuous numbering from the classic series to the new one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All too true. Nobody's forcing me to make my scheme conform, and I have sufficient brains to decipher the various bizarre numberings attempted by others, so the 'official' numberings mean little to me: I'll keep using my scheme, and, should someone get a hold of my files, they can bugger them however they like! :) --Tooltroll 05:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dingwall in Cyberstory?
"According to today's Sun, in addition to previously announced cast members, Shaun Dingwall will be returning to the series to play Pete Tyler, Rose's father, in the Cybermen two-parter. It has already been noted that the episodes take place on an alternate Earth..." - OG news page.

Notable enough? Reliable enough? Do these episodes need articles, despite lacking titles?

Oh, my head... Radagast 13:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What would you name them? --khaosworks (talk • contribs)


 * '2006 Cyberman episodes'? I dunno, forgive my idle speculation. If they'd just give us titles this would be easier! Radagast 14:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We could start the page at Parallel World (rumored title mentioned on OG's News Page) and then move it to the real title when that's revealed... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would be inclined to wait regarding the episode 5 or 6. Even OG feels that it is an unsubstantiated rumour. If we are going to be put "working titles" up, atleast use ones that that have some credibility to them. We know in the past that DW stories have undergone numerous title revisions before eventually deciding on the one that finally gets aired. I feel we might get to hear something quite soon from DWM - HeyWayne ( Talk • Contributions ) 09:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * According to this month's DWM "Parallel World" has been thrown out as a possible episode title. Though no new episodes titles have been forthcoming - HeyWayne ( Talk • Contributions ) 12:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

David A. McIntee says in this OG thread that Don Warrington is in the Cyber-story as "The President". Don't know what he's President of (US? Cybus Corporation?), but McIntee says his source is one of the actors who shares a scene with him.

I do think we'd be better off with a temporary page for all this Cyber-info; we can always move it later. Not sure what the page should be called, but I think we've got enough information to make it legit, whatever we choose to call it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We could always put in your userspace, Josiah, and then move it into an article when we have a final title.--Sean|Bla ck 02:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm... maybe. It's a pretty inelegant solution, and I assume we wouldn't want to link the article to a subpage in my userspace.  I was thinking that we would move the cast info that's on this page to the Cyber-episode's page (whatever that ends up being), which I don't think we should do if it's only a userspace page.  I guess my feeling is that we know as much about this episode as we do about School Reunion, excepting only the title.  If School Reunion deserves its own page, then I think this story does too, even if it's at an inelegant title for a few months.  (We might not get the title until some time shortly before broadcast.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of ambivalent about this - on the one hand sure, there's all this info. On the other hand, I'm not sure that this information is actually needed. But be that as it may, if someone wants to put it up, perhaps Untitled Cyberman episode (2006) might be a placeholder title. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm with Khaosworks. I don't particularly care what we do yet, and I'll just leave it up to you.--Sean|Bla ck 04:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, DWM (via OG's News Page) confirms the Warrington casting along with a bunch more. I suppose I'll bite the bullet and create Untitled Cyberman story (2006) — story rather than episode, so that we don't need to have duplicate pages for the two parts. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Page is up — I'm sure that there's more we can add to it. (Oberman's comments about her character being an "arch-enemy" for a start — I guess I'll go look for the source on that.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Any sources for the Spare Parts connection? It seems rather speculative atm Tim! (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I worried a bit about that. I don't think we have any official sources (I may rummage around OG's forum later to see if anyone knows anything).  The most solid thing, I think, is the similarity of the names "Yvonne Hartley" and "Yvonne Hartman", which I think does indicate at least a tip of the hat.  But it goes without saying that anyone's welcome to improve, condense, or throw the whole thing out if they think it's unsalvageable. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

More plotlines?
This website contains some plot synopsi (synopsises?) for episodes like "Army of Ghosts", "Doomsday" and the tenth episode (they've called it "The Caverns of Doctor Moray"). I just thought it may interest a few of you here. Not sure about the authenticity of the suggested plotlines, though. QazPlm 03:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The DWCA did this for the first series, and their calls were usually way, way off, being based on rumor and speculation and supposition more than anything else. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So it's not worth mentioning in the relevant articles, then? QazPlm 11:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Probably not. Their credibility when it comes to these things is not good. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Synopses". --KJBracey 19:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the following reason for my previous edit: "→Series 2 (2006) - Torchwood is not mentioned in The Girl In The Fireplace 'because Russell T. Davies did not tell Moffat to drop the word in the script'. Other references found in the 2006 annual." (I wasn't logged in at the time, you see). Davies has confirmed that my edit is not speculation and that Torchwood is deliberately built up, like Bad Wolf was and that they are expanding on the Doctor's past. Phil 00:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, firstly, so far Torchwood isn't a story arc, just a drop-in name. Secondly, not every episode has Torchwood - yes, Davies didn't tell Moffat, but that doesn't take away from the fact that TGITF didn't have Torchwood mentioned. Thirdly, as noted in Talk:The Lonely God, there are no other running themes intended. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So wait until the end of the series to see were Davies is taking it? :p Phil 01:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. :) That's why stating anything in detail that definitively is premature. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, alrightie, I'll just content myself with abusing the Wikiquote section then. ;p Phil 01:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Others
I think the addition of a section for "Others" makes sense (per the Outpost Gallifrey episode guide). But I think it might be appropriate to have a short note about Attack of the Graske in the list after The Christmas Invasion — whether it's canonical or not, I think the circumstances of its airing link it with TCI enough to allow it to be mentioned in that context. I'm thinking of something like:


 * 174 - The Christmas Invasion (60-minute special; Russell T. Davies)
 * An interactive special, Attack of the Graske, was aired on digital television immediately after The Christmas Invasion.

Or something along those lines. We could leave it in the "Others" section as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Have added an external link to the "Attack of the Graske" interative game. Unfortunately this is only available to UK users of Broadband. The link can be found in the Attack of the Graske page. Incidently, this game is the same one that was made available to UK users of satellite TV. - HeyWayne ( Talk • Contributions ) 17:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Section headings
The section headings need to be fixed. Lots of them contain year ranges using a hyphen instead of an en dash. But there are apparently lots of other articles referencing the section headings via wiki links.

Is there any way of fixing the typography here while keeping backwards-compatible anchor names? If not, people will just have to bite the bullet and go through fixing the wiki links. --KJBracey 23:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to program a bot to do this? (I know nothing about such things, but it seems like the sort of repetitive task that a bot could do.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Have now got rid of the hyphens and replaced them with en (& em) dashes where appropriate. I've embarked on changing all the anchor links from the individual story articles (dirty job but someone has to do it) and will then try and sort out the various other articles that also use anchor links. Chris 42 22:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Have now fixed all anchor links from individual story articles. However, having done this it seems I've opened up another can of worms, as all the transmission date ranges therein are also joined by those pesky, incorrect hyphens instead of en dashes! I suspect that's a job for another day. I've also checked the vast majority of those other, non-story articles that linked and fixed those as well. Time for a lie down! Chris 42 23:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! You're doing some great work there! Keep it up! --Jamdav86 20:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The transmission date hyphens within the individual episode articles can be easily replaced, and I've started doing this (albeit a couple of Seasons at a time &mdash; there are obviously a lot of them). However, I've discovered that the 'Tenure' dates for the individual 'Doctor' pages can't be corrected quite so easily. They appear to use some sort of Wiki mark-up with which &mdash; being fairly new around here &mdash; I'm not familiar, and changing the hyphen to an en dash messes up the way it displays. Any ideas? Chris 42 21:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Chris. I've just changed Template:Doctorwhodoctor to fix the tenure for each doctor page. The joy of templates — it only needs to be fixed in one place. I note the template is leading to the ugly construct "2005–2005". Someone better at templates should probably fix that. --KJBracey 11:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All done! But guess what? Being so focused on zapping the hyphens from the transmission dates, I've just noticed they also appear within each serial title. Aaarggh! Strictly speaking they should read, e.g., 075: Robot. However, I'd be a bit wary of just going in and re-formatting them all without some sort of consensus. Chris 42 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well done, Chris. I've given you the Working Man's Barnstar for all that tedious work.  I'd be OK with the hyphens after the numbers being replaced with colons, but I don't think it's quite as egregious a typographical problem as the hyphens you've replaced.  If you want to go through the serials again, feel free, but it's not urgent.  Up to you, really. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Five Doctors
Why is this considered part of series 20, rather than part of series 21? The timing, and control room redesign, suggests to me that it's a bit closer to 21.

I ask because now that IMDb has full episode support, the day will shortly come for its separate "TV movie" listing to be transformed into an episode. The question then arises — for IMDb's purposes, is it episode #20.7 or #21.0? For what it's worth, The Christmas Invasion is currently #2.0, as that's the way IMDb handles "pilot"s and suchlike preceding a series, which it doesn't want disrupting the episode numbering.

For Wikipedia's purposes, why not treat it as a standalone, like The Christmas Invasion? --KJBracey 19:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the main reason The Five Doctors is considered part of the 20th season is that it was the programme's 20th anniversary special, and thus was publicized as part of the 20th season. Dunno if that's a good enough reason or not; I'd have to check the relevant Howe-Stammers-Walker books. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Christmas Invasion
It's not entirely accurate to state that The Christmas Invasion is not considered a part of series two; it would be more so to state that it's not a normal part of the series. The reasons for this, I would think, are self-evident enough. It was commissioned at the same time as series two; the production team refer to it as episode "20X"; it was filmed in the first block of series two production, along with the rest of seres two; thematically it's linked with series two; and it's to be included as the first episode on the first series two DVD (with episode 201 as the second). What's the argument against it being a part of series two again? That it was shown on Christmas instead of in a block with the other episodes? Clearly it's not just a normal episode, but come on. Semantics only go so far. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.13.38 (talk • contribs) 13:58, February 2, 2006 (UTC)


 * This article specifically says "[The Christmas Invasion] is not considered part of Series 2 (2006), though that production's first block is shared with this." That's what I was referring to — I was just pointing out the inconsistency of this article.
 * My personal view is that each should be treated as a pilot of their following series. In standard IMDb practice, that would make them "#21.0" and "#2.0", but that isn't necessarily what we want here. Given the formatting of this page, showing them both "stand-alone", like "The Christmas Invasion" currently, is probably reasonable. And I'd prefer that to showing "The Five Doctors" tacked on as the last episode of series 20.


 * On the other hand, if it is the case that the DVD release is going to list it as episode 1 — making the others episodes 2–14, then that would certainly merit reconsideration. Will the BBC's website and TV guides during transmission show this series as episodes 2–14 though? They'd take precedence over a later DVD release, I think. --KJBracey 11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

1990 Season
A section on the cancelled 1990 season was recently added. I'm not sure how I feel about it, so I've commented it out until I hear some other people's thoughts.--Sean Black (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be in this listing, even less so than The Nightmare Fair season, as we actually have stories for that thanks to the novelisations. None of these actually got beyond the outline stage, as I recall, e.g. Ice Time is referenced in the notes for Survival and in the Ace article. There are plenty of serials that were proposed but never made over the years, and many of them were actually at script stage, too. So why not them? Nothing special about a hypothetical season over other hypothetical episodes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * While I'm inclined to agree, there are an awful lot of these cancelled stories that have some notability on their own. There's some information scattered about various serial articles...hmm.---Sean Black (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe include it in History of Doctor Who? Tim! (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps after we split it up... which really should be done soon. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the cancelled Season 23 should be in this list. Even if it is, I don't like the way that serial numbers have been assigned to stories in the cancelled season — I think it adds unneeded confusion. Furthermore, including Slipback opens the door to all sorts of problems — why not include The Ghosts of N-Space, or the Big Finish audios (especially since several 8th Doctor ones have been broadcast on BBC7). My preference would be to delete the entire "Cancelled Season 23" section — perhaps The Nightmare Fair, etc. could be listed in an article of Unmade Doctor Who stories? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Still not back home yet, but I support Josiah's position: the Cancelled Season 23 should not be here, especially the way the numbers have been shoehorned in, which has no basis in any fan or official usage. If this, why not other unmade serials, or seasons like Season 27? These should all be in articles of their own. I'm removing it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As an added comment, if there's enough material for decent articles (and I'm quite sure there is, for both the cancelled Season 23 and Season 27), we could do articles on the lines of Season 6B, say Cancelled Season 23 (Doctor Who) (or a less awkward name) and Season 27 (Doctor Who), which could also mention by the by how some also refer to Series 1 as Season 27. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

a & b?
I am really, really sorry to ask this, especially if it's been covered elsewhere, but I can't see it here or the wikiproject page. Why have we now got 176a and 176b as story numbers? If they have Part 1 and Part 2 in the story title, I could understand it, but it seems arbitrary and just because we know that they were conceived as two-parters in production. Some episodes are self-contained even if they're linked, like Bad Wolf and Parting Of The Ways. DavidFarmbrough 08:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The discussion was re-raised here about a month ago and consensus seemed overwhelmingly in favour of the change. Essentially, OG and the Doctor Who Reference Guide have both decided to plonk for unified story numbers, so we're following the flow of fandom in this particular case. As Dominique Boies of the Reference Guide noted, it would be good for all three of us to provide a unified front, given that we're all major resources these days. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK I understand this now. DavidFarmbrough 14:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this, but it seems to me that you've been coy and done half a job. Why list 176a and 176b separately, in an article called "List of Doctor Who serials"? You're not showing 001a, 001b, 001c, 001d, are you? Okay, there is one difference, in that Wikipedia has an article for each episode, which necessitates a pair of links (and avoids for now the need to make up a series name), but otherwise the situation is exactly like the very first series, which was presented at the time in TV guides as a series of individually titled episodes. So why not show it like this:

Series 1 (2005)
''Initially promoted as standalone episodes, all 13 episodes of the 2005 series also constitute a loose story arc, dealing with the consequences of the Time War and the mysterious Bad Wolf. Starting from this season, the programme was shot in 16:9 widescreen.''

All episodes 45 minutes


 * 161 - Rose (Russell T. Davies)
 * 162 - The End of the World (Russell T. Davies)
 * 163 - The Unquiet Dead (Mark Gatiss)
 * 164 - Aliens of London / World War Three (2 episodes; Russell T. Davies)
 * 165 - Dalek (Robert Shearman)
 * 166 - The Long Game  (Russell T. Davies)
 * 167 - Father's Day (Paul Cornell)
 * 168 - The Empty Child / The Doctor Dances (2 episodes; Steven Moffat)
 * 169 - Boom Town (Russell T. Davies)
 * 170 - Bad Wolf / The Parting of the Ways (2 episodes; Russell T. Davies)

--KJBracey 15:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's in fact how it was originally listed way back in the day before the new series debuted, when we were trying to figure out how to list the two-parters for the new series as the info started to come out. I think it was restructured because the decision was made to split them into separate story numbers, but now that it's back together, I suppose it could go back. Other thoughts? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I do actually think that looks better than the "a" and "b" designations, which are after all our creation and thus a bit OR-ish. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hartnell stories
What is the reasoning behind the titles used in this listing? Is it just arbitrary, or preference, or is it according to some other listing? How do the DVD releases and the [|official website] figure into the discussion, if at all -- with mind that the titles that the serials are currently being catalogued and sold under are the only titles that will be known by new viewers, who would be the most likely to have use for such an entry?
 * Mostly historical, as in the title with the best documentary evidence for its use at the time of transmission, with the sole exception of The Daleks (which is actually called The Mutants, but for reasons of confusion with the Pertwee serial is kept where it is). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Series 2 wrapped up
The new titles have been linked (pages moved/created where appropriate) and the first episode has an airdate, thanks to DWM #368.

See New Earth, The Impossible Planet, Love & Monsters (note ampersand), and Fear Her. Radagast 14:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Top Trumps
Winning Moves, the makers of the Top Trumps card game have scheduled a "Doctor Who" pack for April 2006. This is information is available on their "New Releases" page at: http://www.toptrumps.com/club_newrel.asp, however you need to be registered with the site to view this information, which is free to join. Apart from "April 2006" being a release date there is little else to go on. - HeyWayne ( Talk • Contributions ) 08:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Forbidden Planet the release date for the "Doctor Who" top trumps card game is Sunday 30th April - Sunday seems a strange day to release this kind of merchanise. Source: http://www.forbiddenplanet.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=29781 - HeyWayne ( Talk • Contributions ) 16:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This information might be better placed at Doctor Who merchandise. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that merchandise is currently the best place for this. Tim! (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

An Unearthly Child Pilot Episode
I listed the An Unearthly Child pilot episode under the "Other" category. I reasoned that as the pilot, in addition to never being aired, made certain references that were not were not in the re-shoot/final version. As such I believe it should be considered non-canonical and it should have more in common with Dimensions in Time and The Curse of Fatal Death. Does anyone object? (Deej30) (01:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC))
 * I think it confuses matters (which I why I removed it). The existence of the pilot (such as it is) is already documented in the actual AUC article itself, and since it was never aired and in fact remade (a different situation from The Cage/Where No Man Has Gone Before in Star Trek), there's no question about its canonical status - it just isn't. It's more appropriately discussed within the context of the AUC article rather than as if it were a separate entity from the AUC serial. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dr Who vs The Doctor
A lot of the episodes on this list the actor playing the role of "Dr Who", while the newer episodes list him as "The Doctor". Did the old episodes credit hartnell/baker/pertwee ect as playing Dr Who, or The Doctor. See The Daleks for an examplemellery 00:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The cast listings here are (or should be) as they were on broadcast. Yes, the early Doctors were usually credited as "Dr. Who", and sometimes as "Doctor Who".  Listing the character as "The Doctor" in the credits was an innovation of John Nathan-Turner's — I can't remember whether he did it in his first season as producer (Tom Baker's last) or the next one (Peter Davison's first).  The credit reverted to "Doctor Who" in the 2005 season, but David Tennant reportedly asked for it to be changed to "The Doctor" for The Christmas Invasion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Doctor was credited, variously as "Dr. Who" or "Doctor Who" right up to the end of Tom Baker's era. The first time the credit of "The Doctor" was used was in Castrovalva and it went on until the televison movie (similarly, where the Master was previously credited as simply "Master", JNT changed it to "The Master"). It reverted to "Doctor Who" for Rose and then again to "The Doctor" in Christmas Invasion. All this is in the Doctor (Doctor Who) entry. The cast lists in the story articles reflect what was credited on screen, which is why when people change it to "The Doctor", I keep changing it back. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Am I correct in my observation that the term/name "Doctor Who" has not been used in the series 2005/2006? Only as the name for the series but never in it.
 * The name "Doctor Who" has never been applied to the character in-story throughout the show's history except in tongue-in-cheek contexts (with one exception: the computer WOTAN in The War Machines). The same has occurred in the new series. See Doctor (Doctor Who) for a discussion of this. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't help but feel that a little more explanation about the distinction between the two forms is in order in that article. The basic point is that he refuses to give a name, but gives himself the title of "Doctor". Hence people in the series, reasonably enough, call him "the Doctor", in the absence of a proper name. But outside the series, "the Doctor" wouldn't be specific enough. This unnamed character needs some specific form of address so you can refer to him out of context. And adapting the question of the title - "Doctor Who" - into a pseudo-name for him, seems a natural thing to do, and is what the BBC themselves did right from the very start in 1963. He's always been called Doctor Who (or Dr. Who) from outside the series (at least in headlines or first mention in an article, maybe changing to "the Doctor" below). But inside the series, they've never seen any of the BBC publicity, or indeed the title of the programme. Thus they've no reason to latch onto "Doctor Who" specifically. And they generally don't need to refer to him out-of-context - "The Doctor" is almost always sufficiently specific.
 * Any pseudo-pedantry from fans correcting people who call him "Doctor Who" is misplaced, IMO. Although actually the BBC do tend to use "the Doctor" more now than they did in 1963, presumably as a response to the pedantry. --KJBracey 14:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)