Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 3

What's with all the italics?
There are italics in practically every section; as far as I can tell, they don't actually denote anything. Do they? Or if not, shouldn't they be removed? --moof 22:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:WHO.--SB | T 23:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That only recommends italicising story titles. Accordingly, I'm removing italics from the non-story-title text. --Emurphy42 00:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

New series production codes
Khasworks cites the production codes of the new series in his latest edit summary. If these are known, would it not make sense to include these in the list, as we have for the classic series? --KJBracey 06:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If I understand it correctly, there are no production codes in the way there were in the classic series; there are blocks of varying length (with letter names?), and episodes (referred to by episode number, 1–13 in each season). I seem to recall seeing somewhere that The Christmas Invasion was filmed as "episode X" (for X-mas?), but I can't recall where that was.  Someone with more time than me might check the clapperboards visible in Doctor Who Confidential eps... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was being imprecise. By "production codes" I don't meant them in a traditional sense, i.e. SSS, 4C, etc. This time round, the production blocks have their own codes, which stretch across several episodes, but internally BBC Wales refers to them as Series 1, Episode 1, etc. For The Christmas Invasion it was designated simply as Episode X, which is why it's not a part of either Series 1 or 2. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, we have no idea whether or not it was referred to with or without a Series number attached - do you have a definitive source? Because otherwise, as suggested by the production block and DVD release, it would surely be more logical/correct to consider TCI Series 2, Episode X/Special 1, or whatever... --DBD 20:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. It was in DWM #358, and referred to (in a quick and dirty Googling) in this article here, near the end: "Finally, the last big news from DWM is that the Christmas episode - The Christmas Invasion - will be referred to as Episode X by the production team, falling as it does outside of series 1 and series 2." Also on OG here (look a bit down the page under Wednesday Series News, 22 June 2005): "The Christmas Invasion, meanwhile, is referred to as Episode X to avoid confusion in the production office!" No series number attached. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tabulate!
I think also the episodes listings would look better in a table, given how much information we have on each one. (name, author, alt name, production code, length). We could probably also indicate missingness. May try a mock-up of this. Morwen - Talk 09:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

missing episodes
I think the list of serials should have a notation for the ones which are missing or incomplete. --Ted-m 21:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest adding this as a feature of Morwen's tabulation proposal...--DBD 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking something like this -> how does this look? Morwen - Talk 00:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I like this format very much. MattHucke(t) 22:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I might suggest adding reference to series/story, eg The Daleks being 1x02 or similar. Also, I would deem 'extant' unnecessary - surely all episodes not marked as 'missing' are extant a priori--DBD 14:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming there would be header bars indicating the series, like in Doctor Who DVD releases (have modified roughly). Morwen - Talk 15:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It might make sense to darken or slightly change the background color, for the episodes that have missing episodes -- perhaps just in the "episode number" box. --71.139.18.66 09:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * looks like a good format noting serials released on VHS and DVD might be a good idea too. --Ted-m 18:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that every extant episode was released on VHS in one form or another, so that doesn't need noting; and the DVD status is at Doctor Who DVD releases, so I don't know whether it's necessary here.


 * You might also want to take a look at the templates from WikiProject List of Television Episodes. I think that Template:Episode list may be problematic due to its inclusion of images for every episode (there's some disagreement about whether that's acceptable under fair use or not), but there's also Template:Episode list (no image).  I've proposed a Torchwood version at Talk:Torchwood, which may give you an idea of what it would look like with our parameters.  If I have time I'll knock up a section of this list in the "(no image)" template to see how it looks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That format won't fit exactly; we need columns for number of episodes and numer of missing episodes as well. Best to just use a simple custom table (though of course using the Wikicode for tables). MattHucke(t) 21:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler
Should there be a spoiler warning for the series 3 section because of the rumours of Shakespere and Ice Warriors? --Jawr256 17:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Season 3 speculation
What do you think of moving all the Season 3 speculation to an article of its own? It doesn't really fit here.... this is supposed to be a "List of Doctor Who serials", and the material presently in the Season 3 section doesn't belong. MattHucke(t) 21:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, there shouldn't be Season 3 speculation in any Wikipedia article, only cited reliable information. At the moment there's an article at Doctor Who New Series 3, which is currently on AfD and looks to be deleted soon.  I voted for its deletion, although I suppose I can see the argument for why it doesn't belong here.  The current version of the page is pretty poor, and would need major work if it were retained, as well as a better title.  Not sure about this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There appears to be more and more of this as filming gets underway - but, i really don't see why people need to reproduce every mention of Doctor Who in every newspaper article - I mean, the Sun says "If Dr Who uses up all his regenerations he might be replaced by his son", come on! That's hardly going to happen next year and is hardly relevant to a list of Dr Who episodes, is it?  All that should be here is confirmed cast/story details and possibly a couple of reported comments about upcoming enemies... PaulHammond 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's probably true. I'm afraid I've been responsible for many of the additions of newspaper stories, and I haven't been very discriminating because I didn't feel it was entirely appropriate for me to judge which rumours sounded plausible and which didn't.  Unfortunately, we can't dismiss something just because it was printed in the Sun — they've actually had a rather good track record for Doctor Who spoilers, reporting things like the Dalek vs. Cyberman battle several months in advance.  I personally think the "Son of Doctor Who" rumour is bollocks, but isn't it a violation of NPOV to include some rumours and exclude others without fairly solid evidence to back it up?


 * Incidentally, I hear that in the latest Doctor Who Magazine Russell T. Davies denies the Ice Warriors rumour — but I don't want to put that in the article until I can cite it properly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ...which I now can do, as it turned out that the latest issue was in my mailbox even as I typed the above. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Rani's Return?
The Sun has reported that The Rani will return in an episode of series 3

Notable Link
There is a notable link I believe should be put into the section of the new Season 3, as it has a piece about new aliens that shall feature in the next series. The link's already in The Christmas Invasion in the resource part as Number 3. The link is:




 * It's already there, linked at footnote #1. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Plasmavores vs. Haemovores
I removed this before, but I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'm bringing it up here rather than removing it again. I don't think that the comparison of next series' Plasmavores and The Curse of Fenric ' s Haemovores is terribly noteworthy, and smacks a bit of original research to me. Blood-sucking and/or vampiric creatures are common in fantastic fiction, and a series as long-running as Doctor Who is bound to revisit them occasionally. Once we have an article for whatever episode the Plasmavores appear in, we can note the similarities to the Haemovores and other vampires and vampire-like beings that have appeared in Doctor Who, but I don't think we need to mention it here, right now. The "Series 3" section should be a concise summary of confirmed information and notable press reports, and I don't think the comparison to the Haemovores qualifies. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Screencaps / Telesnaps
Should Screencaps (or Telesnaps for entirely missing Serials) be added next to each Serial in the listings as has been done for the Stargate SG-1 Episode Guide here at Wikipedia? If yes, then I'd be more than happy to provide the Screencaps for them. Alan-WK 01:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that the Stargate and Star Trek episode list pages have screencaps, but I think there have been questions raised about whether that's really covered under fair use. I'm not sure whether we should be following that example or not.


 * However, if it is acceptable under fair use to do that, we do have a screencap for each serial on that serial's page, and could probably use those ones — I'd hate for you to go to unnecessary trouble if we've already got perfectly good screencaps. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think so - both for "fair use" reasons, and for asthetic reasons. Apparently, the rule is that there should be discussion of the programme the screen cap is from for it to be "fair use" - so "The name of the serial is mentioned in a list" isn't substantial enough.  Also, I think having a picture near the name of each serial makes the list harder to use - clicking the link to the serial articles to see the pictures on the one you want to read about is better, imv.  PaulHammond 19:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Newsround
Davies notes the 2nd episode is the Shakespeare one, that the Face of Boe will indeed reveal his secret, that it will be kind of related to the ongoing plot thread which will build up to the finale, which he says will be the "biggest yet". captain jack returns towards end of the series in "multiple episodes". moffat to explain the missing years. pours scorn on ideas of rani, three-part christmas special, rose returning, martians. "i think there's no timelords in the parallel universe".

and they are going to be having a martha and doctor-lite episode. Morwen - Talk 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Table
Ok, I've made a stab at the table. Anyone want to suggest how to deal with the paragraphs of text? (i seem to have made them kind of ugly). Not sure if we should be making them footnotes or putting them as prose in cells? Morwen - Talk 21:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've modified this slightly - breaking up your one big table into smaller tables, one for each doctor. That way most of them aren't forced to the maximum screen with; I think they're easier to read, with the visual breaks between each.


 * We could further improve this by extracting the header for each doctor (i.e., "Sixth Doctor (Colin Baker)") out of the table, and putting it - and any descriptive text about that doctor's era - in the area between the tables. This will allow the tables to reduce in width further, as it's usually the long text that forces them to be maximum width. MattHucke(t) 00:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Time to reconsider a Series Three article?
In the past, I've opposed movements to create a separate article for Series Three, but now that filming is well underway and we've got a lot of solid information about cast and crew for multiple episodes, perhaps the time has come. Last year we were able to begin episode articles around this time, but the latest DWM indicates that this year the production team is holding off on revealing (or possibly even deciding on) episode titles, so that won't be an option in the immediate future. I'm just worried that the Series Three section is weighing down an already long page. There's certainly enough cited information to support an article for now, and once we have episode articles we could move the information wherever it's most appropriate and put the article up for deletion. What do you think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think we should spin off the Series 3 section into its own article. The majority of the low-quality edits that are diligently reverted by Khaosworks daily are speculation and trivia in the Series 3 section; and the Series 3 section is not truthfully described by the article title, as it is not a "List" in any way.


 * Let's title the new article something like "Future Doctor Who Episodes" and link to it from here; it will hold Series 3 info now, Series 4 next year, etc., so as to not have to keep retitling it. MattHucke(t) 18:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... "Future Doctor Who episodes" could be a problematic title, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I know that a non-crystal-ballish article could be maintained under that title, but it could be more of a magnet for speculation than a more concrete article such as "Doctor Who Series 3" or "Doctor Who 2007 series".  It also occurs to me that after all the information has been spun out to appropriate episode articles, the series 3 article could become a redirect to this page (which by then would have a list of the series' episodes). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Loath as I am to want to create a magnet for speculative information, there's probably enough info to spin-off an article; you're right in that the information doesn't really fit here. I would suggest "Doctor Who 2007 series" instead, since it avoids the Season/Series problem and is very specific. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You say that this time last year we had episode articles for series 2; Would the answer be to start articles along the lines of "Doctor Who Series 3 Episode 1" and move them when the titles become known? Percy Snoodle 08:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether that would help, since there was a point last year when we knew episode titles and little more, but also knew some things about elements of the series without being sure what episodes they would appear in. An advantage of creating Doctor Who 2007 series would be that it could include information about, say, Martha's family, who we know will be appearing in multiple episodes, but we aren't sure which ones.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it'd be quite lazy. We keep the information here until the BBC announces the titles of the episodes. Wiki-newbie 16:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We DEFINITELY need a Series 3 article now. The airing is only 3 weeks away, interviews and pictures have been released and so have the episode lists.......... Dr.Jono 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If the episode lists have been released, there's definitely no need for a Series 3 article, as we can put the information into the episode articles. Percy Snoodle 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Merger?
Definitely not. Different lists, different purposes, and only 3 seasons are affected, and to merge would clutter up this page unnecessarily. Let's speedy this. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To recap--the two lists were split in the first place because it got really messy really quickly. So, no on the merger. DonQuixote 16:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 5 days, no supporting opinions. Removing the merger tag. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Plot column
has been adding a "plot" column to the episode table. I'm not sure this is necessary, and I think that it should be discussed before Midnightblueowl spends too much energy writing up plots for all 28 seasons of Doctor Who. Also, if we do want to include brief plots, I think the table should be re-structured so that the plots can go in a full line beneath the other information, as is done at List of Torchwood episodes; I believe that's a standard supported by WikiProject List of Television Episodes. Anyway, let's talk. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did this because I believe that if someone wanted to have a quick look over the serials, they would not be ablt to see any sort of plot. They would have to go to the section on each of the individual episodes, and this would take a long time, and be off-putting. What does everybody else think? -Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:09, October 11, 2006 (UTC)


 * One thing to consider is that the page is already 36K, more than the once-reccomended 32K maximum page size. That upper limit isn't strictly enforced any more, but it is still worth considering: Page size says that exceptions may be made for tables, but even in tables "complexity should be minimized".


 * I'm not completely against this, but I reckon we should talk it over before implementing it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How's about this: {| class="wikitable" !No !Title !Code !Episodes !Writers !colspan=5|

Season 1 (1963–64)
Susan Foreman looks like an ordinary 15-year-old girl, but seems to possess scientific knowledge far beyond her years. When schoolteachers Ian Chesterton and Barbara Wright try to solve the mystery of this unearthly child, they find that a police box in a junkyard holds the secrets of time and space...
 * 001
 * An Unearthly Child aka 100,000 BC and The Tribe of Gum
 * A
 * 4; all extant
 * Anthony Coburn and C. E. Webber
 * colspan=5|
 * colspan=5|
 * colspan=5|
 * } 86.12.121.139 07:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not that it's useless, but on balance, I think it'll bloat up the page, especially considering the length of it and the length of some of the synopses. We've done perfectly well without it so far. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you're right. But I'll try to find a way to change it so that it may be practical Umpajug 09:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could keep the main listing simple (i.e., no plots), but have a detailed page for each series/season that has the expanded information, and link to them from here? That would also solve the problem of what to do with the Series 3 stuff.

MattHucke(t) 14:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's Get Started. I'll do Eccleston and Tennant! I've put Series 1 at Series 1 (Doctor Who)Umpajug 15:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, I don't want to throw cold water on your efforts or anything, but I don't think we've actually reached any consensus as to what to do yet. I'm not entirely adverse to the idea, but I see a lot of duplication and the potential for forking which worries me somewhat. Perhaps you should wait for more people to weigh in on Matt's proposal. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just making that page as a sample for editing and then we can sort it out and expand. I've just written it to be improved by "US"--Umpajug 16:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying don't create it as a sandbox, but then it should be as as sandbox, not a live article. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've Put a Work in progress tag on the article. I knew it would come in handy someday!! :)--Umpajug 16:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Voting is evil. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Series 3 episode breakdown

 * Block 1: The Runaway Bride by Russell T Davies (dir: Euros Lyn)
 * Block 2: 3.1 Smith and Jones by Russell T Davies; 3.2 by Gareth Roberts (dir: Charles Palmer)
 * Block 3: 3.3 by Russell T Davies; 3.6 by Stephen Greenhorn (dir: Richard Clarke)
 * Block 4: 3.4 & 3.5 by Helen Raynor (dir: James Strong)
 * Block 5: 3.8 & 3.9 by Paul Cornell (dir: Graeme Harper)
 * Block 6: 3.7 by Chris Chibnall and 3.10 by Steven Moffat
 * Block 7: 3.11 (to be shot simultaneously with 3.10)
 * Block 8: 3.12 & 3.13 by Russell T Davies
 * All info from Doctor Who: The Inside Story (see ref I've already added to the article naming Smith and Jones). I might try and incorprate the above into the main text and some point, but if anyone else wants a go, feel free (I don't know how to reference the same book twice!). Stephenb (Talk) 11:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we put the block and director information into the table somehow? The prose infodump is rather dense, and I think it might be formatted better just as a table.  Morwen - Talk 20:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the Series 3 table should be connected to the Series 2 table, just like with all the other Doctors'. -Jonathan D. Parshall 04:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Morwen's comment above was before the Series 3 info was put into table format. We could join the existing Series 3 table to the Series 2 one, but the problem is that we've got information there that isn't in previous series — specifically, director and filming block.  I don't think it would be worthwhile to add filming block info to Series 1 and 2 — IMO the only real value in that is now, when we have bits of information that tie into a certain filming block but we don't know what story they attach to (e.g., the appearances by Roy Marsden and Anne Reid).  However, there could be an argument for adding directors to the table throughout — on the one hand, it's relevant information, but on the other the table is already quite long.  Not sure about this one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The block information isn't really that notable, to be honest, and should, or will eventually, go away. Directors throughout the whole series are kind of borderline. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That was my feeling too, only I didn't express it very well. The only reason we have the blocks now is as a shorthand to say things like "Roy Marsden is in either episode 1 or 2, but we don't know which." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand and the joining can wait until Series 3 is well under way. I think adding directors is a good idea, though.  The writer and the director were the two major credits in the classic eps, if I'm recalling correctly. -Jonathan D. Parshall 04:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions poll
There is an ongoing poll and Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). All interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 22:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 Christmas Special
Wouldn't it be considered part of Series 3? It's currently listed as part of 2. -Jonathan D. Parshall 08:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the reasoning is that it doesn't share any production blocks with Series 3. Also, even though The Christmas Invasion shared the first block with Series 2, it wasn't considered part of Series 2. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Series..
This article is using words such as "season" - Doctor Who is a britsh television show and hence should be using English words, aka "series". thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Series" is English...isn't it? --Brian Olsen 20:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppsy i mean "seasons" - corrected.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before, most recently at Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 6. It seems that the classic series of Doctor Who is an anomaly when it comes to the general UK usage of "series".  In the extensive literature on Doctor Who, the vast majority of sources use "season" to refer to the yearly runs of Doctor Who episodes between 1963 and 1989.  The BBC's official Doctor Who website even uses "season" for the classic series.  I think there are enough reliable sources — most of them originating in the UK — that use "season" in this context to justify its use here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a historic reason for this usage: Doctor Who is one of only a few UK scifi programs to have been made with the US season model, where an enormous number of episodes would be produced each year, and broadcasting of a production run would start before it was all shot. This distinctiveness faded with time, but the usage remained.  82.45.195.6 21:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Series 3 spoiler
In the last few days, we've had people adding the information that the Daleks will be appearing in Helen Raynor's story (the 1930s New York two-parter). This is being discussed pretty widely on the Outpost Gallifrey forum and other places, and was apparently picked up by the News of the World — not exactly reliable sources. The source appears to be some set photos leaked by a visitor to the set, posted on the OG forum and subsequently removed by the forum's moderators. Now a listing of upcoming Doctor Who toys on Forbidden Planet's website includes a "Deco Daleks 1930s Gift Pack" (scroll down), although the link doesn't go anywhere. All in all, it's still circumstantial evidence, but it does all seem to be pointing in the same direction. Is there a way we can indicate this without violating WP:RS, or do we have to wait for a better source? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * News of the World is good enough to mention is as an existing rumour. We reported the Doctor's son and Cyberwoman rumours, for example (and their denials).  82.45.195.6 21:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We were able to cite those tabloid rumours properly, since those papers had articles online. I don't think that the News of the World does — their website doesn't seem to have an archive section.  We'd need someone who has an actual copy of the paper to provide a proper citation for the print edition. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Or just someone with access to online news database archive.


 * [The news of the world has claimed the New York in the 1930s episode will feature the Daleks]


 * tada! Morwen - Talk 08:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Show-off. :P --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh great Daleks... again.... ¬_¬ I just hope they are not in the series three finale, it'd be too samey. Though Art-Deco Daleks would be very cool looking. But aren't the Pete's World Cybermen quite Art-Deco? I wonder if we'll see the return of that Cult of Skaro Dalek which scuppered off at the end of Doomsday. Anyway, I didn't relise TNOTW doesn't have a online-news site in the same manner as the Times or the Mirror or something. Thanks Morwen ^_^ --GracieLizzie 10:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Pertwee section
OK, I give up -- I just can't get the Pertwee section to match the same format as the others in terms of width. I'd like to insert a couple of season notes similar to those in the Tom Baker section, but for some reason it won't let me do it, I believe because the Pertwee chart is narrower than the others. Can anyone figure out how to standardize it? 23skidoo 04:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This should just be a function of the notes being long. What text is it you want to add?   Morwen - Talk 12:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Have a look now they are now all the same width. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

can I just say that it is now confirmed for the 31st of March because of a delay. Can we make the date official now?

Written and acted...
....Mark Gatiss isn't the second so I have changed this to 'one of a select few'. I don't know the number, but it includes:

Derrick Sherwin (unit peaked cap man) Terrance Dicks (newspaper vendor) Glyn Jones (colonist) Victor Pemberton (scientist)

and that's just from memory.

DavidFarmbrough 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

#038, Season 5
Check out the listing for #038. How could episode SEVEN be missing from a 6-episode story?--BJason 06:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, a typo. Fixed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing info?
Now that we've got titles for Smith and Jones (Doctor Who) and The Shakespeare Code, should we remove the info about those episodes from this page? It was only here because we didn't have a better place to put it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and done this, and reorganized the cast info based on the latest Doctor Who Magazine. We'll probably get people trying to reinsert things like Dean Lennox Kelly as Shakespeare, though.  I've put a notice in hidden text, but if anyone can think of a better way to indicate "it's at the article pages" while avoiding self-reference, please do it.


 * By the way, I'm slightly unsure about how best to indicate the "Daleks in New York" thing. I'm worried that technically speaking, the Weakest Link filming thing is unverifiable, and saying anything about the Dalek pictures that leaked while they were filming that story would be original research.  The rumour is obviously true, but have I gone too far in saying so on the page? None of the evidence quite reaches Wikipedia's standards, does it? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

List Format
It seems that the entire format of the list has changed recently, and I'm not sure it's for the better. It seems to be including a lot of information that's not necessary, and omitting useful info such as original airdate. It says that this article is "part of WikiProject List of Television Episodes." However, it's not even following the structure. If this is to comply with the standards of the episode lists, I suggest we rename the article (List of Doctor Who Episodes, as per the naming convention) and add a redirect for the current title, as well as updating the table. Anyone agree? Caiyern - Talk 7:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, because it's not just episodes, it's episodes and serials as well. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Airdates would be a useful inclusion, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I added airdates to the Norwegian list and it doesn't look cluttered up. Davhorn 12:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Could we learn from the Star Trek people?
I know it's sacriledge,but I think the way they have laid out their episode guide looks very clear and easy to read. The best thing about it is the little screen pictures for each episode. Could we do something similar? List_of_Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation_episodes 80.194.5.18 00:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are fair use considerations about that use of images which make it an inadvisable example to follow. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea, for the new series at least. We could split it into List of Doctor Who serials and List of Doctor Who episodes.--Codenamecuckoo 09:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Series 3 Episode Titles
Where have the episode titles: been confirmed?
 * Daleks in Manhattan
 * The Lazarus Experiment
 * The Family of Blood
 * Utopioa
 * In Doctor Who Magazine #378. Davhorn 21:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On the episode page for Daleks in Manhattan, it says that the next episode is called 'The Oncoming Storm', but there is no reference to any title on the episode list on this page. Has the title yet been announced? --Riche 22:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it has not. - NP Chilla 01:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * DWO claims that the title for episode 5 may be "Hooverville" http://www.drwho-online.co.uk/ - "New Series News Archive" - "S3: Episode Titles" entry date 12/30/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.196.60.42 (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

two characters from American Gothic painting
Two characters, one woman, one man, looking and dressed exactly like the two in the American Gothic painting by Grant Wood have been spotted in the series three trailer at roughly 20.5 seconds in. The meaning of this is unclear. The episode is assumed to be the third where they visit New Earth again but not certain. These characters are also used in the Rocky Horror Picture Show cult plays.

Is this who I think it is?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/episodes/2006/runawaybride.shtml (Click on "Coming Soon...")

On the trailer, about 22/23 seconds in. Is that Christopher Eccleston? The more I watch it the more certain I am... Kamek 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't even look like him if you check out a recording from the television broadcast. Davhorn 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Flesh and Bone
Where did this come from? - NP Chilla 22:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's listed on FreemaAgyeman.com's (a fan site) episode guide, but that's hardly a reliable source. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone has mentioned it in the production plans section and is citing DWM 377, unfortunately I don't have 377 to hand (ironically I do have 376, and 378 to hand though... my 377 is probably under a pile of rubble somewhere). However I don't remember this and if it is the case wouldn't 378 mention it in it's series three side column? My copy of 378 makes not mention of it. --GracieLizzie 10:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They're not actually meaning to cite 377, they just wrongly left the ref to 377 there at the end of the sentence. Morwen - Talk 10:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry about that. But it does look like a 377 cite so I got confused. --GracieLizzie 10:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jack Straws
I don't recall Davies describing the Jack Straws in the Jo Whiley interview. (That interview was where I first heard the name "Jack Straws", and that's why the citation is there.) Was the RTD quote brought in from another source? If so, we should cite it properly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know where the original comment came from but he says something to the same effect in DWM 378 which I've added, if anyone knows where the original comment was made please replace the .--GracieLizzie 11:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Britney rumour
Has anyone else seen this:?

Would this merit inclusion on the Tabloid Press section, or is it simply too silly/bizarre/ridiculous? Radagast 03:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was dreading that question. My inclination is to leave it out unless someone adds it, and if they add it we provide citations both to the Daily Star article and to the coverage of it on the Outpost Gallifrey News Page, which says "perhaps we can place this story safely in the rumor department."  (Of course, we'll soon have to address the fact that two of the editors of the OG News Page are also members of the Doctor Who WikiProject, but I hope that the OG News Page is still regarded as a reliable source for Doctor Who news.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good approach. I'd also note this is just (reportedly) a desire on RTD's part, and we can't list it as confirmed casting or anything similar. And in that vein, since when is desired casting publicized? As soon as this hit the public news, the relevant agent would be very disinclined to contact the actress in question.


 * As for the OG news page, most stories are referenced elsewhere; those that aren't, we'll need to consider the news editor in question case-by-case, I'd say. Radagast 18:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Should the Britney stories now be removed from this section? They were extreme to begin with and have since been explicitly debunked by RTD in DWM. Rumours about John Simm and Timelords are still being reported/discussed, but the Britney one leaves the Wiki page open to the reporting of everything that is not true rather than genuine rumours that remain neither proven nor denied. --The Missing Hour 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Britney Rumours could still be floating around, it may be valuable to keep the debunkings here until the series airs. I'd be happy for them to go then though. --GracieLizzie 23:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)--GracieLizzie 23:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Simpson and Jessica Biel?
Does anyone know where SyFy Portal have gotten the story that Jessica Simpson and Jessica Biel are being pursed for casting? I've not seen this in any of the papers. --GracieLizzie 22:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * They credit "Star Pulse", so it looks like they got it from here. That article seems to be a rehash of the Britney story discussed above, and something that smells like speculation from an unnamed "source".  I wouldn't put too much credit in it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

John Simm as...
The Sun is reporting a... well rather HUGE spoiler if it is true. Then OG decides to splash the spoiler all over their main page too. Should we wait to report this? Or stick it in the tabloid section? --GracieLizzie 14:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent! (-: thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it in the tabloid section last night. The Sun has a surprisingly good track record about these things — for example, they reported the Daleks in Doomsday long before anyone else did. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't realise I suppose I should check the article first her. As for the Sun, it has had some Who scoops, mind you some people on OG are saying they've made some major mistakes. But I'd still trust the Sun far more than, say, the Daily Star. --GracieLizzie 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a new interview with The Independent that claims to verify the casting first-hand (though there is no attributed quote). Given that it's not a tabloid, and that it was purportedly revealed in the context of an interview, I'm moving it into the "real info" section. I've also added the reference to the Master (Doctor Who) page.--Aderack 03:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that "Mr. Saxon" is the watch word for Series 3, and given that there are rumours abound that "The Master" may make an "unexpected" appearance in the new series. Has it occured to anyone that "Mister Saxon" could be an anagram for "Master No. Six"? A coincidence surely? HeyWayne ( Talk • Contributions ) 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been pointed out — but we can't include anything like that in a Wikipedia article unless it's reported by a reliable source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

42 (Doctor Who) and Human Nature
Where have these two episode titles been confirmed?? - NP Chilla 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 42 is apparently confirmed in the new issue of Doctor Who Magazine. Human Nature, on the other hand, hasn't been confirmed as a title as far as I know (although it has been confirmed that Cornell's story "has links" to the novel Human Nature, and it appears to be an adaptation of it (many characters with the same names, etc.).  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes and references
The footnotes for the early series are currently lumped in with the references for new series 3. I'd like to split them out, perhaps using the older ref/endnote templates so they can appear as footnotes to the appropriate series. What would people think of that? Percy Snoodle 10:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you object, shout soon - I'll probably do this tomorrow or Monday. Percy Snoodle 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, done. Notes and references are now separate. Percy Snoodle 11:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good, Percy! Nice work. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope no-one minds but I've requested that this page be semi-protected.
I've asked if this page can be semi-protected over at Requests for page protection. I hope that's okay. I was simply tired of having to remove those rumoured and currently unverifiable titles people keep adding. --GracieLizzie 00:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems perfectly reasonable to me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Sound of Drums?
Where has this come from? --GracieLizzie 16:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the press release at Outpost Gallifrey (click here), 'three new episode titles' will be revealed in DWM issue 380. As this isn't officially on sale until 1 March 2007, perhaps we should nominate this article (and any made for Blink (Doctor Who) or Human Nature (Doctor Who episode) (the latter currently redirects to List of Doctor Who serials)) for deletion? Silver Nemesis 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As per my answer at Talk:The Sound of Drums I think we should redirect them until someone with a hard-copy of the magazine can add a citation. Though if The Sound of Drums is true, then it should be fine at The Sound of Drums not The Sound of Drums (Doctor Who) which would only be needed if wikipedia had another article called "The Sound of Drums". --GracieLizzie 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've redirected The Sound of Drums (Doctor Who) to here. (PS: Doubt the plotline stuff in that article has been confirmed.) Silver Nemesis 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Although it doesn't hit shelves until March 1, subscribers have recieved copies now. So "Human Nature", "Blink" and "The Sound of Drums" are definitely confirmed as story titles. Morwen - Talk 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)