Talk:The Girl Who Died

This is not a two parter!
This is 100% clearly not a two parter so why does it say that it is patt a? it really isn't! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.107.239 (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that contrary to what Moffat has previously said, it is. And it will remain so, unless an official source is given after the airing of the episode stating otherwise. (And please sign your posts with ~ ). Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  21:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that this and "The Woman Who Lived" are being classed as a 2-parter by the show's makers as they both feature Maisie Williams' role - Ashildr(sp?), and the next episode will show how her life progresses as a result of the Doctor's actions at the end of this episode. And really, it doesn't matter what individual opinion says about whether they're a 2-parter or not, the episode clearly ended with "To Be Continued" - no arguing with that, is there? ;) KoopaCooper (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Both the radio times and Doctor who magazine are now classing them as two separate stories 82.2.107.239 (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Both magazines classed them as separate stories so as to keep the cliffhanger a secret. The "To Be Continued" message, the fact both episodes revolve around the life of Ashildr, the similar episode titles that continue the trend that all the other Series 9 two parters have, and the fact the Series 9 boxset lists them as a two parter, mean that it must be a two parter. BlueBlue11 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not accurate. Radio Times has only recently come to the conclusion that these are separate episodes, essentially after seeing them. Their review of The Woman Who Lived reflects this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.26.5 (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If the primary source - the episode - says "To Be Continued", and having yet not seen the following episode, starts with recapping this one, it doesn't matter what Radio Times says, they are a two-parter. They may be written that they didn't have to be continuous two-parts but the intent appears clearly to be a two-part. --M ASEM (t) 01:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A "To Be Continued" in terms of modern Doctor Who isn't really an indicator of whether something is a two-parter. Many universally agreed upon two-parters don't actually have have "To Be Continued" sign appear. Additionally, the words "To Be Continued" do appear after a number of episodes that aren't considered two-parters. This includes "The Name of the Doctor" and "The Almost People" (which is part two of a two parter. So unless you want to make the argument meant that "The Name of the Doctor" and "The Day of the Doctor" are a two part episode or that "The Almost People" and "A Good Man Goes to War" are a two parter (rather than "The Rebel Flesh" which doesn't end with a "To Be Continued") than the presence of a "To Be Continued" doesn't actually indicate whether something is a two-parter in terms of modern Doctor Who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.26.5 (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I also believe that the episodes should be listed as a two parter for the sake of consistency. It makes perfect sense to call them a two parter both from the audience, story and production point of view. BlueBlue11 (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Editor of Doctor Who Magazine, Tom Spilsbury, said on gallifrey base, that Steven Moffat had asked them to have these as separate stories in the Series Poll, and that they would be treating the episodes as separate stories. 82.2.107.239 (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)|82.2.107.239 (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)]]

I see no public source that backs up your statements, with proof that it's definitely Spilsbury who said this. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 12:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll Link you to it but you will have to be a member of the site to see it http://gallifreybase.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9370318&postcount=51 82.2.107.239 (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This fails WP:RS; specifically WP:USERGENERATED: "For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  13:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about this, I know it's a tweet but it's public https://twitter.com/TomSpilsbury/status/673875842372608000 143.52.63.32 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)|143.52.63.32 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)]]
 * See talk:Doctor Who (series 9). We're waiting for it to be publish in DWM (or something similar). DonQuixote (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Naming Issue
The 'Mire' in this article are named differently in the Closed Captions, where they are the named as the 'Maya'. Which is correct? CC view on Bnevets (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Mire is correct, as per multiple sources. And also from the link you've given: "Captured by Vikings, the Doctor and Clara must help protect their village from Space Warriors from the future; the Mire. Outnumbered and outgunned their fate seems inevitable. CAST: Peter Capaldi, Jenna Coleman". Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  06:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought they might have been credited on the end of the episode as a group, (maybe "Mire operators" or something) but they didn't get any credit at all. Oh well. KoopaCooper (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)