Talk:List of Doctor Who home video releases/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

tables

i think the tables would be more useful if we could sort them by release date. does anyone agree? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't. I like them the way they're listed. If you're after such a list there's one at a Doctor Who Wikia site. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

how would it hurt things to make the lists sortable? they would still look the same MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

One obstacle to making them sortable is that some data spans multiple rows or columns. A sortable table relies on there being no such spanning. Try clicking on any of the "sort" buttons in the example below:

Season	Story #	Serial name	Number and duration of episodes	R2 release date
1	001	An Unearthly Child	4 × 25 min	30 January 2006
	002	The Daleks	7 × 25 min	30 January 2006
	003	The Edge of Destruction	2 × 25 min.	30 January 2006
	005	The Keys of Marinus	6 × 25 min.	21 September 2009
	006	The Aztecs	4 × 25 min.	21 October 2002
2	010	The Dalek Invasion of Earth	6 × 25 min.	9 June 2003
	011	The Rescue	2 × 25 min.	23 February 2009
	012	The Romans	4 × 25 min.	23 February 2009

--Redrose64 (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

yes i saw that. people would probably not want to remove the spans. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Season	Story #	Serial name	Number and duration of episodes	R2 release date
1	001	An Unearthly Child	4 × 25 min	30 January 2006
1	002	The Daleks	7 × 25 min	30 January 2006
1	003	The Edge of Destruction	2 × 25 min.	30 January 2006
1	005	The Keys of Marinus	6 × 25 min.	21 September 2009
1	006	The Aztecs	4 × 25 min.	21 October 2002
2	010	The Dalek Invasion of Earth	6 × 25 min.	9 June 2003
2	011	The Rescue	2 × 25 min.	23 February 2009
2	012	The Romans	4 × 25 min.	23 February 2009

MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

this is a good example Samuel R. Delany#List of Short Stories MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Both that and your DW example above have been written without using rowspan and colspan: this is why sorting these tables works. There are those who would contend that repeating the season number down the first column is redundant, which is why rowspan was used in the first place. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

yes i see that. but maybe it would be more useful to have it sortable, instead of just having the prettier version, if we cant have both. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's pretty clever. Didn't know that tables on wikipedia could be sortable. I wouldn't mind multiple row entries for added functionality. But that does mean rewriting or splitting the date format, and reworking the titles as well (ie "The" and "A" titles). DonQuixote (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Templates exist for these purposes. There are, for example, {{dts}} for dates, {{nts}} for numbers, and {{sortname}} for text. See my user page for a sortable table using all three; note in particular that on sorting by article name, "The Sun Shines Bright" sorts before "Tempsford railway station", and that "George Augustus Nokes" sorts after "Neyland railway station". The {{sortname}} template isn't used on every row - only when "natural" sort order needs to be overridden. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, then the only things I can suggest are that number of episodes and episode duration should bet two separate columns and the first column should be the episode number; season number can be one of the later columns. DonQuixote (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

yeah exactly!!! maybe doctor # would be a column too if we join all the tables which we should do if we do this MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see how it could be useful to sort by release date if we were dealing with one big table, but they are already split by Doctor, so all we would get by sorting is the order in which a particular Doctor's DVDs were released. I think this is of comparatively little use and not worth impacting the readability of the tables to achieve. Miremare 17:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

yea. theres no reason not to join all the tables too. if wikipedia is supposed to present information in the best way possible i think thats how to do it MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

it would be really useful, you could see trends in what doctors are released in which order MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there were any trends, except that in 2003 (40th anniversary year) there were seven Region 2 releases, one for each Doctor (The Seeds of Death, The Talons of Weng-Chiang, The Dalek Invasion of Earth, Earthshock, The Two Doctors, The Curse of Fenric, The Three Doctors). Otherwise it's almost random, presumably chosen as and when the Restoration Team are able to give firm completion dates. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

well its hard to say for sure unless we allow users to sort the data in a useful way right? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong - you don't need a sortable table in Wikipedia in order to analyse data. I happen to have maintained an off-wiki database of DW DVDs since May 2005, when Series 1 Volume 1 was released; I quickly retrofilled it with all releases back to the first in 1999, and I have occasionally searched for trends - apart from the 40th anniversary thing, none have shown up. Besides which, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

First, other then being able to quickly identify which releases are upcoming there is no real benefit to gained from making these tables sortable. This kind of thing is deprecated as wikipedia is not here to sell DVDs. As to splicing all of the tables together "Please don't". By consensus we separated them at some point in the last three years for ease of editing. It is much easier to add Frontios (as an example) when you don't have to scroll through everything from '63 on. As Redrose64 points out if you have some trend that you want to search for that can be done at home or, perhaps, in a sandbox that you set up for yourself. MarnetteD | Talk 19:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

cant consensus change? i wasnt here before. also if i put in work to do that research isnt it a waste to not allow everyone else to use my sortable table too? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets look at the columns in order and what sorting might bring to them:

1. Season - already in season order so a sort command would make no difference.
2. Story - Most stories are aired in the order made. Those that weren't had that happen for a specific reason and we have a problem with editors that try to change the production codes to the airing order. I can see this being exacerbated by a sortable column.
3. Serial name - Not sure what possible use sorting this column could bring to readers of this page
4. Number and duration of episodes - ditto
5. Release date - mentioned in my first post

Granted this is all just my opinion. To answer your question yes consensus can change but there needs to be a good reason for doing so and, for me, one has not yet been presented in this situation. As I also mentioned whatever "research" you are trying to do can be done in a sandbox where you can sort these columns to your hearts content without making this page more difficult to edit. MarnetteD | Talk 22:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

yes but isnt the point of wikipedia so that everyone doesnt have to do everything themself? if i have to go redo the table in my sandbox, maybe everyone else does too. why would we want to make it harder to figure things out? and actually sorting by number of episodes seems very useful. just because you think these things arent useful doesnt mean they arent. and the alternative is even less useful any way it is argued right? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MarnetteD - there is no need for this. Matt (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

but technically there is no need for this article at all. no one said it was needed it would just be useful MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to have the columns sortable, and doubtless it could be useful to a small minority of readers, but the only way of doing it is by messing with the season column and thereby negatively affecting the immediate readability of the tables for everyone. Hopefully at some point the powers that be will fix the table code to allow sorting with rowspan. Miremare 00:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

DWM DVD update

Doctor Who Mag issue 430 (out Thursday) has confirmed all of this years releases for the classic series, they are as follows (aside from those known),

• Planet of the Spiders
• Mannequin Mania (Spearhead / Terror of the Autons)
• Frontios
• Earthstory (The Awakening / Gunfighters)
• Paradise Towers
• Revisitations 3 (Tomb / Robots / Three Doctors)
• The Solar System (Ambassadors / Sun Makers)
• Day of the Daleks

Thought I wouldn't post them straight onto the article and wait until the mag was out, just posted the list here so people understand the unexpected changes. That is unless people think I should post them up now, I'll be happy to. SundableObject (talk)

Odd mixtures in the box sets. what's their reasoning re Earthstory, I wonder? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of it is quite logical. Thye don't want to release 2-part stories alone and Davison is a better selling Doctor, better to spread his remaining two over two releases by pairing it with a not so popular Hartnell story. The Solar System box set makes good sense too, the budget for 'The Sun Makers' was probably lowered in favour of a higher for 'The Ambassadors of Death' re-colourisation.SundableObject (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC).

It does look odd - "The Solar System" set doesn't seem to have much of a connection either. It may simply be part of the pattern to get the rest of the stories out on DVD ASAP. A bit like the VHS box set that they did back in 03 that got all off the previously unreleased stories out in that format in time for the 40th anniversary. We will have to keep an eye out for any changes in these. MarnetteD | Talk 18:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, they still have 19 stories to release in 2012-2013, I think this year is about pushing out as many "easy" stories (not including 'Ambassadors' that description of course).SundableObject (talk)

Make sure that Planet of the Spiders is done as soon as the DWM is published, so you can give article title, page no. etc. in the {{cite magazine}}. There's an IP who's added text like "Planet of the Spiders will be released on DVD" at least twelve times, and been reverted as "unsourced speculation" each time. I don't want him putting that in w/o ref yet again. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any mention about what they've done with the black and white Ambassadors episodes? Miremare 19:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No mention as yet but I'd expect it is in colour, if it weren't then they'd have kept it back as far as possible until 2013. Steve Roberts did seem to want to quash rumours that it was set for release imminently after the Wired article but I expect he was stretching the truth to keep the secret.SundableObject (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody has started to edit and not made a very good job of it, if it isn't fixed in a bit by the person doing it then I'll fix it all (eg. not having Season 5 twice). But a proper reference (ie. more than just the DWM issue) is imperative.SundableObject (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've merged all the DWM refs into one. The one to improve is against Mannequin Mania in the box sets section.

<ref name="DWM 430">[[Doctor Who Magazine|DWM]] 430</ref>

Adding a page number would be nice. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Just bought the issue, have now added page number and release date to reference. SundableObject (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Running time of alternative versions

I noticed that a couple of the releases ("The Five Doctors" & "Resurrection of the Daleks") were showing running times for both versions included on the disc. This is confusing when comparing with the later new series releases, or, say, "Trials of a Timelord" which shows different runtimes for consecutive episodes, the implication being that "Resurrection of the Daleks" would consist of 6 episodes of differing lengths. I have added an ampersand to the running times on both "The Five Doctors" & "Resurrection of the Daleks", but not sure that this is the best way to go about it. Hope this makes sense. Anyone got a better idea? Maybe parenthesised with short explanation? And, while we're at it, should we show running times for special edition feature length re-edits? Rob Sinden (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We could put "(Broadcast Version)", "(Original Version)" and "(Special Edition)" next to them. We could also add the running times of the SE versions to 'Planet of Fire', 'Enlightenment', 'Battlefield' and 'The Curse of Fenric'.SundableObject (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ambassadors delayed

'Ambassadors of Death' has been delayed according to the Classic Doctor Who twitter feed. I wouldn't suggest changing the entry in the table though, at least not until we have more news on whether it will mean a delay for 'The Sun Makers' too. Basically, wait for some more solid news on it.SundableObject (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a reliable source, but [1]. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it is just an elaboration on the tweet by the Classic Who Twitter feed (which of course, is ran by Dan Hall, the guy who runs the range) which is a reliable source on Classic Who DVD releases.SundableObject (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Should this be removed from the table now? Or maybe, rather than "TBA" it should read "delayed from 2011" or something. Any thoughts. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Chapter 11 of Richard Molesworth's highly detailed (and I do mean highly) book Wiped! Doctor Who's Missing Episodes describes the recolourisation process. It discusses the fact that the recourisation of ep. three of The Planet of the Daleks was done by combining the chroma dot process in England with a hand colouring process done in the US. It also mentions the fact that it was just one 25 minute episode and that the exchange rate was favourable at the time. He goes on to state that the exchange rate has worsened and any future B&W Pertwee episodes might only use the chroma dot process. I don't know that any of this should be put in the article. The book was published just last year so the info shouldn't be too much out of date. I post it mostly FYI and in case it might give any of you enough info to go and find out more about the current state of Ambassadors. I can "highly" recommend this book to those of you with an interest in the missing DW episodes. MarnetteD | Talk 20:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Aye, "Delayed from 2011" is more clarification, any objections?--Connorthomha (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Official Twitter; reliable source?

Hey All;

I was just wondering;- do we consider the official DW DVD Twitter a reliable source here? On the [[Wikipedia::RS]] page it states;

""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."

I presume Dan Hall is a professional in the field as he controls all the Classic DW DVD operations? Thanks --Connorthomha (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

TBA Dates

Hi All - I was just wondering; we have a few TBA dates here (currently Reign of Terror, Ambassadors and Daemons) all three have been confirmed for release but there has been a bit of debate over Reign of Terror. Personally I think when the DVDs are confirmed to be in production by a reliable source then we should add them onto this page with a TBA stated date but some users may think we should have firm dates any thoughts on this?--Connorthomha (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Based on a conversation that I am having with Connorthomha (and it look like he got here while I was typing all of this - I was going to use the header "Question about using twitter feeds as a resources") on my talk page a few questions have come up. First, as near as I can tell we aren't allowing twitter feeds as a source for info on the upcoming season but we are allowing them for DVD info. If that is okay with the watchers for both pages then fine but I think that we should post something on the Wiki Dr Who project MoS confirming that. Next, it seems that the twitter feeds that we are using here have some WP:CRYSTAL problems. The one for The Daemons simply states that they are working on that story. It gives no release info whatsoever and to make the leap that it will be released this year would also seem to violate WP:SYNTHESIS. The one that was added today about The Reign of Terror states that is is "likely" to be released late 2012. Until a confirmed date can be established it is just as likely to be released some other year. We do have a good explanatory note about the delay for The Ambassadors of Death. IMO we should either apply the same standards for info being added to the upcoming season that we do to the DVD releases. Having said that I also am aware that wikipedia is rife with inconsistencies just like this and if everyone is okay with that in these articles then that is fine with me. I just think that we should put it on the record.

One solution that has been mentioned before is to just put all of the stories in the table with TBA. I know that it has been rejected before but it looks like we are only a couple of years from the entire "Classic Series" making it to DVD and I would support that idea if consensus did. Thanks for you time in reading this and for any input that you will add. MarnetteD | Talk 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to the solution of placing all stories with TBA release dates; we are at a stage where we have only 25 or so stories to be released... I do think this is a good idea and would also support as it would stop alot of conflict and there are so little stories to be released I personally believe it wouldn't be insensible to take this action. Just to add to your comments about the Twitter issue I think it is a matter of who is running the Twitter. On this page certainly I think we should allow the "classicDW" twitter and although I am not aware of the current situation over at the serials page I think official twitters made by people in enough of a position to know episode titles for the upcoming series etc. should be allowed :) --Connorthomha (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Release dates that are not pinned down to a specific month (or better) by a reliable source are mere speculation and so fail WP:CRYSTAL. In 2005 or 2006 there was a substantial rumour that since a commentary had been recorded for "Revenge of the Cybermen", that it would be an upcoming release. But "upcoming" can be a long time; it actually arrived just over six months ago. "The Dæmons" was also listed as having had a commentary recorded; nothing firm has yet been shown for that, except that it's (provisionally) one of the seven to be included in the very last box-set.

I still have a few notes that I made in Autumn 2008. These show that in August 2008 I noted that "Kinda" was a forthcoming release (actual date: Monday next week, if all goes well); in October 2008 I noted "Planet of the Spiders" (currently scheduled: 18 April 2011) and a triple set of "Revenge of the Cybermen", "Attack of the Cybermen" and "Silver Nemesis" (we got them 9 August 2010, 23 March 2009 and 9 August 2010); and in November 2008 I noted "Terror of the Autons" (scheduled 9 May 2011) and "The Dæmons" (errm...). So, let's not be hasty until, for example, it actually gets advertised at either BBC Shop or Amazon. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Were these advertised on the classicDW twitter? My personal opinion is that some rules on wikipedia are outdated as more and more companies release official information on twitter, facebook etc. than ever before and from that I think if Dan has posted on the official twitter saying that a story is due for release soon then we should list it if we do not go with adding all stories as TBA dates. However - in the case of The Daemons I think that info is a bit scarce so maybe remove that but for Ambassadors & Reign of Terror also just confirmed Vengeance on Varos should be included. --Connorthomha (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they weren't on Twitter. To be exact, the sites this information was on in Autumn 2008 were http://www.drwho-online.co.uk/ http://www.eyeofhorus.org.uk/ and http://www.zetaminor.com/ but please note that I never claimed them to be reliable sources - I was giving examples of speculative rumour which failed to deliver. In fact, until today, I have only used this information for my own private use. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well, we have definitely incorporated http://www.drwho-online.co.uk/ sources into multiple places within the article both currently and in the past and they have been given the chance to give exclusive news on DVD releases in the past (VoV being just one). On their site did it confirm their release or just give speculation? If they just said something along the lines of "Daemons commentary recorded, maybe we're going to see a release soon?" then they shouldn't have been stated as a source and niether should Daemons have been added to the site. If they said "The Daemons is going to be the next release, coming 2008" (something along those lines, confirming release) then they have clearly been wrong in the past and should maybe be deemed as unreliable? It depends because it seems quite obvious Vengeance on Varos (the one they confirmed last night) will be released as they say... --Connorthomha (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not state that I had added information about any of these "releases" to any Wikipedia page: I stated that I used these sources for private use. Furthermore, I did not say that drwho-online was the source of speculation on The Dæmons. In fact, my note "The Dæmons: commentary recorded" is sourced to eyeofhorus (no date noted) and also zetaminor (November 2008). I also did not intend to imply that drwho-online was in any way unreliable, just that when they do give information concerning events far in the future, these events do not necessarily occur as speculated. See, for example, http://www.drwho-online.co.uk/releases/#unplaced2011 - the implication is that these items are to be released in 2011, but in my experience it's possible that some will get held over to 2012.

In fact, there is only one DW story about which I have ever added future release information to Wikipedia: that was Planet of the Spiders, with these edits: 12 January 2011; 26 January; 27 Jan; 18 February. The reason for this was it had attracted the attention of a particular IP editor who seemed obsessed with the idea of adding unsourced information about the DVD release, edits which began at least as early as 7 February 2010, and I wanted to make sure that if the information was to be added, then it had to be properly sourced. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest we ban all discussion of upcoming releases as non notable--consistant and both WP:CRYSTAL and fan cruft proof. MartinSFSA (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think to avoid conflict we should put down all stories as TBA and add in dates from reliable sources (DW Twitter, DWM, DWO etc.) As Marnette pointed out we're about a year or two away from having them all out on DVD (I believe they're aiming to have them all out by 2012?) --Connorthomha (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We should not permit the addition of unsourced information. So, TBA for all until reliable sources are located.

I don't think that "all out by 2012" is feasible: that gives them nine months to release 28 stories - that's a rate of 3.111 per month. If it were "all out by the start of 50th Anniversary Year", this gives them 21 months, ie 0.905 per month, which is achievable - the period 1 March 2010 to 28 Feb 2011 produced 16 new stories and 3 reissues, an average of 1.583 per month: but besides the 28 stories completely unreleased, they also need to squeeze in several remastered re-releases too. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "all" stories? We don't know which ones with missing episodes are getting a release and which aren't. Miremare 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll wager that The Reign of Terror, The Tenth Planet and The Ice Warriors all get DVD release for their existing episodes, for the simple reason that they got VHS release for their existing episodes. Same goes for the completed footage of Shada. Whether or not the first three get a The Invasion style reconstruction is another matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but for the sake of argument, I'll wager that they don't. So who's right? :P To the best of my recollection 2E said that all complete serials will get a DVD release, so that leaves the incomplete ones up in the air. If we add TBA (and I don't think we should because it tells the reader nothing), it should be to complete serials only, not all of them. Regarding incomplete ones that saw a VHS release, Dan Hall (or someone else involved, but I'm pretty sure it was him) has said they're not going to do any reconstructions that would be below the standards set by the animated Invasion ep, so that would seem to rule out the "linking narration" style seen on VHS releases with missing eps. Given how expensive reconstructions will be, and that there must be at least five of them to complete the serials that you mention above, these releases can be by no means certain. Miremare 20:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I'd agree with Miremare that if we do put TBA dates down for all of them then it should only be for complete serials as we don't know the nature of releases for the incomplete serials, or, if indeed they will be released atall! Oh and by 2012 I meant that they'd have them all out by the end of 2012 which would give them 21 months to do 28 stories, which I think they might just manage? If not 2012 its 2013, will have to double check it!! --Connorthomha (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Anybody have any objections or can remember what the objections in the past were? Just read on an unofficial forum that all but Tenth Planet and Ice Warriors have been commissioned... They're probably all in Dans twitter feeds so I didn't add them to the page as and when they were posted because I haven't seen them;- won't add these to the table if we do go ahead with adding all stories. Has anyone got any objection to me adding in the lot - I don't think there is a form or anything to fill in for this?! :S (if there's a proper procedure we have to follow first then I will stand corrected) --Connorthomha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, Connorthomha is right: as of today, all but The Tenth Planet and The Ice Warriors have been officially commissioned. (And we know the other two are coming, although not to Wikipdeia standards). I definitely agree that it's time to make some kind of 'TBA' date for all of these, thus allowing easier edits to be made in the future when dates are made known? Thanks for letting me opine! Daydream believer2 (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As always, I'm 10 minutes behind myself. Duly ignore my previous message, as some kind soul has helpfully updated the listings. There are still a half-dozen sitting in the "not yet announced for release" pile, but it looks much cleaner already. Daydream believer2 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added TBA dates for all existing stories minus Shada;- I think we've had confirmation we're getting it in a boxset with something else but I wasn't sure so didn't add it!--Connorthomha (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Source Code, Computer or Editing Problem?

I have a problem with the Third Doctor releases list. In particular Spearhead from Space - Special Edition, Terror of the Autons and Planet of the Spiders with the Region 4 dates. When I go to the main page I see TBA. Then when I view the source code I see the date of 2 June 2011 with a reference for each of them. I know that is probably correct because Fetch DVD in Australia also lists them. So that's not the problem. But I just can't see those dates on the main page. Is it just me? Could it be fixed? Or is it just my computer? -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it now works. So never mind. I did try for over an hour maybe over two. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you are unregistered (ie you signed with an IP address), the page as viewed may be a cached (old) version, which might not have revisions up to date; however the one that you see in an edit window is always the up-to-date version. To make sure that you always view the latest version even when not editing, I suggest that you register an account. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Terror of the Zygones

If you look at the "Terror of the Zygones' release date it says TBA. Is there really any point of having Terror of the Zygones there if theres no release date for it? --User:Whose Line is it Anyway? (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

See the "TBA Dates" discussion just above. Personally, I wouldn't have the TBAs, but some other editors like the list to be as complete as possible I guess. Miremare 15:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted DVDs

I would like to suggest that information about which titles have been deleted (are no-longer available) or are scheduled for deletion could be added to the article. I would find this information useful and I think that other people might also find it useful. Perhaps (D) after the release date in the table could indicate that a title has been deleted.

For example:

Season	Story #	Serial name	Number and duration of episodes	R2 release date	R4 release date	R1 release date
19	130	The Five Doctors – Special Edition	1 × 100 min. (Special Edition)	1 November 1999 (D)	9 October 2000	11 September 2001

I don't have a list but (in the UK) I think that it's mostly the titles that have been re-issued, for example the original 1999 release of 'The Five Doctors' has been replaced by the 2008 '25th Anniversary Edition' and titles re-issued in the 'Revisitations' box-sets have had their original releases deleted. 'The Robots Of Death' has also been deleted and, as far as I'm aware, there is no replacement at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.18 (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

OTOH, it might be possible to verify that a title has been formally withdrawn (for example for legal reasons) but it would almost never be possible to reliably source that it had simply gone out of production. There's the danger that every such assertion would be original research. 212.183.140.7 (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If we can firmly find the title has been withdrawn then it is a more informative list if that is included IMO. --Connorthomha (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Lost in Time split

I see an editor has broken down the episodes included in the Lost in Time set and incorporated them into the table in episode order. I imagine this to be contentious, but i *think* I prefer this. Both systems are flawed, but maybe having the whole table in story order works a little better. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right. It certainly brings uniformity to the table and it brings consistency to the way that boxed sets are mentioned. MarnetteD | Talk 15:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the way it was done before, with each Doctor's Lost in Time episodes grouped together was far clearer for the reader, as there was no ambiguity about which serials are complete, which serials have had their own releases, and which episodes are included on Lost in Time. None of these things are clear any longer from simply glancing at the list. The Lost in Time episodes are not individual releases, so I can't see any reason for giving them individual entries on the list - this is a list of releases after all, not a list of serials, and Lost in Time was a single release. Miremare 15:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on the fence, but leaning slightly towards the "new" way. "Myths and Legends" was a single release too, but we do split that up. What is the best way? Could we colour-code incomplete serials maybe? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

All of the Lost in Time info is grouped together here List of Doctor Who DVD releases#Lost in Time. I don't think that we need to have the same info twice on the page. Colour coding is a good idea. Maybe some type of blue in honour of the TARDIS - though not that dark of course. MarnetteD | Talk 18:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think boxsets such as Myths and Legends are really the same thing - they're a compilation of what are, to all intents and purposes, individual releases of individual serials that just happen to be bundled into a slipcase, whereas Lost in Time is a definite single release (one title, one box, one catalogue number etc.). The article being a "List of Doctor Who DVD releases" per the title, Lost in Time should preferably have a single entry, though I can see the point of splitting it in two by Doctor. But repeating the same release 17 times in the list is utterly contrary to the article's purpose, as these are not individual DVD releases, which is what we're supposed to be listing. With this change we lose clarity and deviate from the point of the article, but what do we gain? We already have List of Doctor Who serials, so there's no need or point to have a complete list of serials here. Secondly, the List of Doctor Who DVD releases#Lost in Time section should of course be secondary to the list itself - if there are things in that section that are redundant then we should consider removing them from there rather than from the list itself. Miremare 20:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a strong believer in consistancy. Either we keep all the box sets together or we break them all up. I can not see any reason for making an exception for one box set. Personally I find the split version much easier to read as it allows readers to see exactly which stories have and haven't been released yet in some format easily. It also come with a notes saying that it is part of the box in time set (just like all the other sets do). For the record it also isn't repeated 17 times it's there 12, don't alter the facts to add weight to your argument. If we are going to list them as single releases then the entire page needs to be rearanged so that all sets are together and then we would need to list them in order of dvd releases instead of order of serial. To me it is much better this way, but I could accept that. I can't accept doing a half/half job like it was.203.45.112.118 (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely this is an article about the DVDs as real-life entities? Story order is for fictional entities, real-life order for real-life entities. 212.183.140.7 (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Lost in Time isn't a box set, it's a single release. As for "17 times", my apologies, I was going by List of Doctor Who DVD releases#Lost in Time, which on second glance also lists serials for which whole episodes are not included. But whether 17 or 12, the point remains the same. Miremare 17:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the box sets are single releases too, as you can't get the contents separately.203.45.112.118 (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Where I say "single releases", I'm making a distinction between the regular releases and the box sets. The box sets are bundled individual self-contained serials, each with its own case and cat number just as with the regular releases, these being contained within a slipcase or box. Lost in Time has three discs in one case with no slipcase or box, a single cat number, and a single title. This format is exactly the same as the other non-boxset releases. Miremare 17:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow I never realized putting the whole list in the order most of it seemed to be in already would cause this much discussion. Personally I think the way it is makes it more useful, but I'm happy as long as it is consistently in order of something (whether it be by episode, DVD release or heck even alphabetical). Before I made the change none of these were the case. 58.166.112.21 (talk) 07:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

None of these need to be the case - the list was in chronological order by serial, with the misc Lost in Time eps in chronological order in their sections. Specifically, what problems does that cause? I can't see that anyone's mentioned any at all, whereas splitting Lost in Time causes the problems mentioned above. Miremare 21:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's harder to read out of order. 58.166.112.21 (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But in what way is it harder to read? I've tried to explain above how splitting Lost in Time negatively affects the clarity and purpose of the list, so please be a bit more specific. Miremare 14:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest a compramise. There could be two separate lists, one for releases of incomplete serials and one for complete serials. So the first would contain Marco Polo and then all of Lost in Time together and both lists would individually be in proper order. 165.228.203.166 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait nevermind. I just realised The Tenth Planet and Ice Warriors would have to go in the first list as there has been no confirmation that the would be relased as complete and that would break up the Lost in Time if kept in order. Oh well, I tried. 165.228.203.166 (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As I read it five editors were okay with the new table and one was not. Thus, the change by reversion to the old table today by that editor looks to be against the current consensus. That is not the way that wikipedia operates and that change should not be made again unless the current consensus changes. MarnetteD | Talk 18:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect MarnetteD, you have refused to justify your arguments by not participating in this discussion for almost two weeks (when I asked you "with this change we lose clarity and deviate from the point of the article, but what do we gain?" but got no reply), yet you jump in and revert me based on "current consensus"? On the other hand I've been actively explaining the logic behind why this Lost in Time change doesn't work, and why it is contrary to the very point of this list. Secondly, you say "that change should not be made again unless the current consensus changes"? You yourself reverted the original reversion of this change, despite the fact that this discussion was happening and the original version should have stayed until a consensus to change it had been established, not the other way around. If you want the change you need to come up with reasons for why it's necessary. Thirdly, your counting is a little skewed, and in any case consensus isn't a vote count as I'm sure you're aware. Nobody in favour of the change, including yourself, has put forward any reasoning for it other than personal opinion (Rob Sinden excepted as he wasn't arguing either way), so please do justify these opinions and address the concerns that I and the other editor raised before claiming a consensus. Thanks, Miremare 20:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do not have to add anything to my previous posts. As can be seen by the other editors who have posted here we have no problem with the new format and your problems with it have not been convinced anyone that there is any need to change it back. I can only suggest that you make a WP:RFC at the appropriate spot. MarnetteD | Talk 20:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That you haven't got anything to add to your previous posts (even when directly asked a question) is exactly the point. Of course you don't have justify your opinions, but it doesn't help your argument much if you don't. What's a discussion if you refuse to discuss? Again, it's the change that has to be justified, not the status quo. If you want an RFC then go ahead, or you could actually engage in discussion, which would be rather more sensible. Miremare 20:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have a unique take on consensus that I cannot find supported by the relevant policy pages. Once again you are the only editor that has any problems with the new table. No one else who has commented does. All of the items that the old LiT listing covered are taken addressed by the notes and the separate section that discusses in detail what makes up the LiT box set. One again I can only recommend that you make a request for third party comment. MarnetteD | Talk 20:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? For my "unique take on consensus" see WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus-building in talk pages, the second paragraph in particular. Consensus is about discussion and quality of arguments, not the number of "votes". But even if it were, you counted the votes wrong again, even though I pointed out just now that I wasn't the only one to object. Kind of gives the impression that you're not even reading what I'm saying to you. Miremare 21:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please also note in particular the third paragraph of that section of the policy. Thanks, Miremare 21:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read what you typed. I find the arguments unconvincing and any problems seem to be yours. Again I can only find one editor demanding a return to the old table. Thus, one last time you need to make a request for a third party comment regarding this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 21:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

But did you read the policy I linked to? And do you still think I have a "unique take on consensus"? And once again, the onus is on you to argue for this function-changing alteration to the list, not on me to argue for its removal - the fact that I wanted to discuss rather than just revert you doesn't give you a pass to act like I'm the one trying to change the article. And if you still think I was the only one to object to the change then ... does it show how little attention you're willing to expend on reading other people's views? Or are you trying to wind me up or something? Also don't forget the editor who you wrongly reverted. Not that, once again, the number of "votes" has anything to do with it. Miremare 21:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I see my name mentioned above, and being counted as some kind of vote. I would like to re-iterate that consensus isn't a voting system, but, to be clear, if anyone is studying the consensus, I think my comments above could be construed to favour the "new" way, at least until someone has a better idea. I never really liked the way the Lost in Time set sat on this table. The thing is, if this were strictly a least of releases, then maybe it should follow a chronological release order, by boxset, or whatever. However editors, quite rightly, a long time before I got involved, decided to put this in story order, as this is a more useful way of displaying the information, as any reader will want to see which stories are released in this order. As an extension of this, to show which parts of which stories have been released, it makes sense somehow to split the Lost in Time box set in this manner too. However, maybe this isn't really in-keeping of the spirit of this type of page. Should there somehow be, i dunno, a "Doctor Who on home media" page or something, which lists all the serials in order, showing how the material (complete or otherwise) has been released, be it on DVD, CD, reconstruction, whatever. With the two pages side by side, this one could then revert to the earlier version, or even be a chronological list of releases. Or, again, could we have two tables on this page? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned your name regarding "votes", though it was in the context of trying to explain that this isn't a vote. ;) Your idea of a separate list of "home media" is an interesting one (there's no reason we shouldn't also have the VHS and CD releases after all), though it would probably end up making this list rather redundant and we'd likely end up being made to merge them. Anyway, regarding this list: as you say, serial order is the logical way of doing things, as the random nature of the DVD release schedule over the years has little if any meaning, so not much point in ordering them that way. But I don't think we should let that concession lead to function creep on the point of the article, which after all is simply to list the physical DVD releases themselves. We can debate splitting box sets, and what constitutes a box set, and I've tried to see it from the point of view of those in favour of the change, but to me Lost in Time is clearly a unique occurrence in the range - it's neither a set of self-contained stories each with its own DVD and case like the box sets that we currently split, nor just a single serial like the regular releases, or indeed the split box sets. Ideally IMO, Lost in Time would be listed on its own between the first two Doctors - this would clearly single it out, and make immediately apparent its status as an individual (rather than multiple) release, what it contains, and that the serials it contains are not complete, which is the inevitable implication of listing them alongside the other regular releases however many explanatory footnotes we include. To me it's this particular ambiguity that's the worst part of the split. Miremare 17:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record

Considering the nature of this edit [2] and its summary I am afraid we need to get the following items on the record.

1. The edit restored the old version of Lost in Time listing in spite of the fact the discussion above has five editors that are okay with the new version indicating a consensus that it should stay.
2. The section for Marco Polo contains the information "condensed telesnap reconstruction" and that is precisely what has been released on DVD. So there is no ambiguity about its spot in the table.
3. Per the "TBA Dates" thread above consensus seems to have been reached to include all serials in this table. The proviso was to not state how many episodes were being released for the incomplete serials until that could be sourced.
4. The contention that the Tenth Planet and the Ice Warriors have not yet been announced for release and that the source provided does not support their eventual release is just wrong. As can be seen here [3] the date of the source is 3 May 2011. It clearly state "There are 24 stories that still exist and have yet to be released on DVD, all of which are expected to be available by the show's 50th anniversary in 2013." It then has a section for 2011 and 2012 releases. Next is a section which reads "Unplaced" and the two titles in question are in that section. This indicates that these stories have not yet been scheduled for release - not that they aren't going to be released. Now new information is coming along all the time - as shown by the fact that The Colony in Space has received a release date for later this year. That only means that we update with the new info as it comes along. We don't junk the old source due to the changes.

I know that this is more than most editors will want to read but Wikipedia has policies and guidelines in place for the editing of its articles. There are times that any editor may like those policies and times that they hate them. One of the reasons that they are there is to avoid contentious editing. Of course consensus can change but at this moment it would seem that the article and table is in a form that most have agreed on. This is also only one editors interpretation of previous discussions on this page so other input is welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 20:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1: Please see my above reply regarding that. 2: You can't go into your local DVD store and buy Marco Polo. It's an extra on another DVD, and in its own words nothing but "a tantalising glimpse of this lost story". It's just simply not a DVD release. 3: Fine, I removed those as the lead sentence of each section states that "there is one incomplete serial (The Tenth Planet/The Ice Warriors) that has yet to have its extant material announced for release on DVD". So we can't really have it both ways. 4: "Expected" is not a confirmation. Neither is a list of serials that haven't been confirmed for release in 2011 or 2012 a confirmation of any of their releases. Miremare 20:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

These have been addressed so I will simply summarize.

1. My reply and recommendation is also listed above.
2. The listing for Marco Polo has a note attached that clearly states that you cannot buy it separately. That is not a unique situation as there are other stories that can only be purchased in box sets like "Chameleon Tales".
3. The "TBA Dates" discussion addresses this and consensus was reached.
4. The source provided meets WP:V and WP:RS for me if it doesn't for you then again make a request for third party comment. MarnetteD | Talk 21:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

2: That's not the point, this is a list of DVDs, not DVD extras. 3: There was a consensus to list the Tenth Planet is being up for release, but also to state in the table's lead that it hasn't been announced for a release? If so, then that doesn't make much sense. 4: The source being reliable or not is irrelevant - it doesn't say what is being claimed it says. Miremare 21:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It lists 24 stories and it says "all of which are expected to be available by the show's 50th anniversary in 2013." I'm not sure how else to read it and I'm not sure what else it needs to say. You really should make your request for third party comment. MarnetteD | Talk 21:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I quote myself from above: ""Expected" is not a confirmation". Miremare 21:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why it says TBA. I agree 100% with what MarnetteD has to say. 203.45.112.118 (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

TBA refers to the date of release, not to whether a release has been announced. Miremare 16:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a list of planned DVD releases. That they appear on the list is evidence enough. The word expected refers to the 'when' not the 'if'. Other stories (for example 'Mission to the Unknown' which being only one episode with audio intact could easily be animated then released) do not appear in the source and therefore doesn't appear on this article. I will agree however that the lead's that say it hasn't be announce need to be changed to reflect the content of the article. Perhaps if we said yet to have a 'release date announced' instead of 'yet to be announced'. As for Marco Polo, it is a full release of what is available for that serial and happens to be released with other stories is irrelevant. It has just as much right to appear on the table as anything from Lost in Time. 58.166.112.21 (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have rephrased the leads to address this issue.203.45.112.118 (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Tenth Planet and Ice Warriors simply haven't been announced. If they had been, we'd really know about it because these have missing episodes which would have had to be animated or otherwise reconstructed, which would draw a lot of attention as with The Invasion and Reign of Terror - this would be especially true of Tenth Planet ep4, what with it being the most sought-after missing episode. But the only reconstruction that has been announced is Reign of Terror. What the source actually says is which serials have been announced for release in 2012 and 2013. It then says which remaining serials haven't been announced for release yet, i.e. Tenth Planet, Ice Warriors etc. We know that all "complete" serials have been commissioned for a DVD release, which is why there's a problem with these two as they are not complete, so we don't know one way or the other what 2e's intenions are. Finally, please refer to the "TBA Dates" section on this very talk page, where there was a pretty unanimous agreement not to list these two stories, despite MarnetteD's mistaken belief above that the opposite was true. Regarding Marco Polo, it's not a full release of all the material available - Marco Polo is a seven part serial running for around three hours, the soundtrack for which exists in its entirety and can be bought on CD. What appears on the Edge of Destruction disc is a short recon using stills, photos, descriptive subtitles, and bits of the soundtrack - it's just a curiosity, not a "DVD release of Marco Polo", so doesn't meet the criteria for the list. Thanks, Miremare 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit I prefer the Lost in Time list separated by the two Doctors and complete in story order because it's easier to see or find what's included in the DVD releases. When they are separate items it's not very clear. As for including Marco Polo why not list the Beginning box set too and include the cutdown audio version on the list of its contents. That way the list is consistent for both items. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason not to have the Beginning on the page as a set, because it wouldn't change the order of anything (don't care either way). I do believe though that Lost in Time should stay split given the current layout of the page with everything else in story order. I simply stuck out like a sore thumb before and the notes are pretty darn clear that only certain parts of the serials were released and that they are only available as part of Lost in Time. Marco Polo needs to stay on the page in either case. Sure it ain't particularly pretty or satisfying to anyone who wants the whole thing (much like alot of Lost in Time), and sure it doesn't countain the full soundtrack (again much like everything on Lost in Time except Moonbase or Crusade), but it does run for a good half hour and it actually gives a better sense of the full story of the serial than many of the Lost in Time serials. But here's the thing, There has been a DVD release that contains half an hour of material for Marco Polo. The rest is irrelevant, material exclusive to that serial has been released on DVD and therefore we need to keep it on the article. As long as we make it clear that it's not everything and can only be bought as part of the box set (which we have), I simply don't understand why someone would push so hard to remove something that can only serve to better inform the reader. Oh and Tenth Planet/Ice Warriors, the source does not conclude by saying which remaining serials haven't been announced for release yet, it say which releases have yet to be given a definitive place in the schedule, but are planned for release at some stage. It is merely the timing in uncertain. As for concensus above saying not to include them on this page, that was concensus not to include them unsourced (as opposed to ever). We have a source, of which everyone but Miremare seems to recognize. Personally I would like to include all incomplete serials as I strongly believe that they will eventually all be released, but that won't happen (and rightly so) because we go with what the sources say, and this source says Tenth Planet and Ice Warriors are coming and the rest aren't (yet). 165.228.203.166 (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You are making assumptions about what the source means that are simply incorrect and that it simply doesn't say. If Tenth Planet and Ice Warriors have been announced, you will have no trouble finding a source that explicitly states this. But the fact is that there is no such source because they haven't been. The list being in "story order" is a concession to the fact that each story has been released in its own self-contained disc/box format, which is not true of those episodes on Lost in Time. And regarding Marco Polo, you are misunderstanding the purpose of this list, which is to list DVDs, not things on DVDs. Miremare 13:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of the list was to list the DVDs and the serials on the DVDs. Because why are so many other box sets that happen not to be Lost in Time and The Beginning ones happen to be included and made perfectly clear what's on them? Also the Five Doctors - 25th Anniversary Edition lists both versions included for instance i.e. Special Edition and Broadcast version. I just don't get why people like messing up the First Doctors box sets. What's up with that when so many other Doctors box sets are left alone? By the way I hope that doesn't cause more vandalism of other Doctors too. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it does seem strange that nobody wants to split the Key to Time, E-Space, Black Guardian, or Trial of a Time Lord box sets given the apparent rationale given for splitting Lost in Time. Regarding your previous comment about Marco Polo, as The Beginning is currently split into its three constituent parts, it would be better noted under The Edge of Destruction entry that it includes the Marco Polo recon, as they are one and the same. Miremare 18:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Good idea about including Marco Polo with The Edge of Destruction. Although I still think it more accurate to just list the two box sets with the list of serials and for the rule to be they shouldn't be messed with. Especially as even Region 1 gets at least Lost in Time as one or two separate packages. I'm not sure about the other box set. That said you have to get it as a box set in my region. So I don't get why some want to pretend you get things separately. It's just not accurate for everyone. And I thought Wikipedia wasn't about making things up? -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Miremare, the rationale for splitting Lost in Time is to keep things in order. Splitting Key to Time, E-Space etc is not being pushed because they are already in order. There is no problem. 123.2.138.148, We are not trying to pretend you get parts of Lost in Time separately. We are making sure that there are notes saying only available as part of Lost in Time/Beginning. There is no pretence. All we are trying to do is put order into the list. I don't get why you two want to throw it back into disarray. Why don't we just fill the page with chocolate sprinkles instead. Also listing Marco Polo as part of Edge of Desctrution is a bad idea. As stated and backed up above it has just as much right to be there properly as anything in Lost in Time. 203.45.112.118 (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have "just as much right", because this is a list of DVD releases, which is the whole point of this Lost in Time/Marco Polo issue. And by using the word "disarray", you're summing up exactly what you get by splitting up a single release and putting bits of it all over the place. Miremare 07:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree Miremare. Lost in Time and The Beginning names made sense because they are real DVD packages. I also liked the Serials listed in order under the names because then you knew what was in those sets. Plus sometimes Region 1 sells things separately. The current listing is meaningless to the general public and those casually interested in Doctor Who. Because you can't get them separately in most areas. Therefore the listing is useless to anyone that isn't a fan. I found the other way immediately understandable. And I'm a fan. Currently it's not an accurate list of what's available and just a made up one by those that happen to like a Serial list over a DVD one. Especially Lost in Time. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm tired of arguing this. For a list of reasons why I will continue disagree with you see what numerous people above have said repeatedly. I'm out. Do what you want to ruin this page. This will be my last comment as I have better things to do than deal with you anymore. 203.45.112.118 (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Really, enough of the histrionics. Maintaining the status quo of over six and a half years in no way "ruins" the page. Miremare 15:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah ruins is a bit over the top. I prefer the current layout too but lets not go overboard here. The page would still be pretty decent with or without these changes just some of us feel one way is more appropriate and others think the opposite (for varying reasons). Neither version ruins the page. PS what does histrionics mean? 58.166.112.21 (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think this list is a Serial list with an occasional DVD set listed rather than a proper DVD list. With all the box sets included in the list for the non-expert. By the way including Myths & Legends being missing. Even if they are separate and have it mentioned in brackets for each of them. Because if someone looks at the current list for the first time and have never bought a DVD they don't know that it sometimes has missing information. And I don't usually use the footnotes or notes so how is the general person meant to know that's what they must use to get at the real information? Will this list ever go back to being a DVD list? -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A few things to say. Firstly, I agree with Angeloz that the list doesn't really live up to it's title given the current basic layout. That said, in order to have all box sets together it would require a good amount of work and I still find this version with things in episode order more useful. Maybe it would be better to rename the page. The following is on the assumption the same basic layout stays unchanged. I am still opposed to merging Lost in Time again while leaving everything else in episode order. However I have noticed that support for going back to that has increased since I last commented. If this does end up happening (and I hope it doesn't), then can we please not have it exactly like it was before. Either before/after the main list or between the first two doctors is a lot less jarring than where it was slotted in between seasons. I also still believe Marco Polo should stay, but I do like the change that just happened with it being in the same row as The Edge of Destruction. It makes it more obvious that it isn't available separately without affecting anything else. Either that or fully merging the beginning is better than having it completely separate. I'm not sure why one user was opposed to this (though they have since said they don't care what happens anymore). As for Tenth Planet and Ice Warriors, I have re-read the source. I still consider it an announcement of sorts for the two, but now concede that it only strongly implies that than directly states it. I still think they should be included on the list though. It's still a very strong implication and nothing will convince me that Tenth Planet won't be released especially considering the last episode "being the most sought-after missing episode" and then to have only Ice Warriors unreleased is ridiculous (especially since it looks like Shada is announced). Finally, histrionics is a melodramatic displays of temperament (also I'm opposed to the chocolate sprinkles idea as I'm lactose intolerant). 165.228.203.166 (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What about dark chocolate? Because commiserations I don't envy you. Thank you for agreeing with me on where this list has gone wrong. Although I don't think this list should be renamed. I think it should find its way back to being a DVD list instead. Another option is maybe have a dash or a hyphen and mention what box set something belongs to if they are split up with a note to click on next to the name eg. Underworld - Myths & Legends (I don't know how to add a note). So a person as previously mentioned that isn't very knowledgeable can see the information. I do agree the Marco Polo and The Edge of Destruction listing is currently better than it was. But I still don't get the objection to just listing it under The Beginning box set designation i.e. with both the box set and serials listed together as they used to be. It's more accurate for most areas and you don't need to know anything about the DVDs to find it useful. I can see why people don't like things being out of order. But I don't get why that matters because it's a DVD list not a Serial one. I again found it much more useful when Lost in Time were listed together just separated by the two Doctors. As you had the information immediately at hand instead of hidden. As for the stuff listed as TBA I'm fine with them being listed that way and for them to be on the list until more is known. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking a bit further into this, we have two problems with some of the box sets: firstly 2e's tendency to group unrelated serials into "themed" sets, the most bizarre of which we've just seen with Earth Story, and secondly the fact that these sets are are often discarded in other regions. For example in Region 1 everything in "Revisitations 2" gets individual releases, and Gun Fighters / Awakening are not grouped together either. In fact, many box sets don't seem to have made it to Region 1. This is why, for the most part, serial order works, as regardless of what Region you're in, you can find what you're looking for easily without getting bogged down in Regional box sets that don't apply to you. If 2e were consistent with their box-sets and didn't just grab random ones to pair together in Region 2, there wouldn't be a problem either way, but as it stands the only box sets that really fit are the ones common to all regions - The Beginning, Rescue/Romans, Space Museum/The Chase, Dalek War, Key to Time, E-Space, New Beginnings, Black Guardian, and Trial of a Time Lord. Thankfully these all contain consecutive serials, so fit with the order of the list anyway. It's only right that these should be indicated on the list. Also, I have to continue to strongly disagree about Tenth Planet / Ice Warriors - I'm sure they're both going to be released too, but until they're announced (and when they are it will be picked up on by more than a single fansite, who doesn't explicity claim that anyway) it's not for us to say. Miremare 14:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Putting aside temporarily disagreements about LiT and TP/IW, I don't think anyone is still opposed to merging the Beginning so I have made this change (with a note for Marco Polo being on the Edge of Destruction disc). How do people feel about merging the other continuous box sets Miremare lists that aren't already merged (Rescue/Romans, Space Museum/The Chase, Dalek War, and New Beginnings). The only one I am opposed to is New Beginnings as it crosses over two doctors and I think they are available separately in region 1. Thoughts? 58.166.112.21 (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Good points. My thought on the Rescue/Romans and Space Museum/The Chase solution can't they be linked together like The Edge of Destruction/Marco Polo was before in that there wasn't a line in between them suggesting them being together. I'll admit I don't know how to do that. I agree that Earth Story is the most ludicrous box set. But as I suggested above maybe list them separately but mention the box set eg. The Awakening - Earth Story (plus a note so a person can find out everything in the box set and which regions they are located in). That could be done with New Beginnings too so they are listed in separate Doctor sections plus I'd like it if New Beginnings is mentioned once with the Fourth Doctor and once (obviously) with the Fifth. Plus the line is disappeared again between the two Fourth Doctor stories. Same with Beneath the Surface except with different Doctors. I think the Dalek War should be acknowledged as a box set (maybe a hyphen or properly) and a note added to that indicates not for all regions. Unless someone can think of something better? I know there are other ones not mentioned. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@User:58.166.112.21: Yes, I agree that New Beginnings would be best left split, what with it spanning two Doctors, and as you say, the individual serials did also get their own non-boxset releases in Region 1 anyway (going by Amazon.com's listings for all these), so we wouldn't necessarily be doing anything too inconsistent.

@Angeloz: Agree that box sets should be mentioned a bit more visibly where a particular DVD is only available in Region 2 as part of one, particularly for the "random" ones like Earth Story, Myths & Legends, etc., including Beneath the Surface, which seems to be the only boxset common to all Regions to group non-consecutive serials together.

Also, sorry to keep on about Lost in Time, but I think the reasoning for retaining the "split by Doctor" format is strengthened by the fact that it was also released in exactly this way in Region 1, as separate Hartnell volume and Troughton volume. Miremare 18:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you know I agree especially with Lost in Time. I'd also like to point out many of the stories are only available in box sets in Region 4 as well. So it's only Region 1 that complicates things. That and the Tegan Tales were released together but not called that in Region 4. My wish is that the box sets are acknowledged in some way and if they have a name to include that mostly. So that the non-expert can see them. But again I'll admit I don't know how to do major edits. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So I think we're agreed on Rescue/Romans, Space Museum/Chase, and Dalek War. As well as not doing the same for New Beginnings. I understand the desire to make the other sets more obvious (especially Beneath the Surface if it is the same everywhere) but not sure how to do it without it looking awkward. Also I'm starting to sway on the Lost in Time issue. I think I could handle having them grouped together (split by doctor) as long as it wasn't just thrown in between seasons. If we're going to display it differently to the rest of the list it needs to be more obviously separate. Maybe have the list go something like.. 1st Dr, LiT, 2nd Dr, 3rd Dr etc. or before the rest of the list. 139.168.132.246 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree about Rescue/Romans and the like. Although the Tegan Tales might not be listed that way but they are a box set. Could it be listed like Romans/Rescue i.e. no line between stories? I'd like to thank those that did the edits. I agree with Lost in Time being split between the two Doctors but the rest of the list being grouped together. I'd prefer that the list starts where the first serial on the set for each of them would appear in the list. That way it'd be semi-ordered. I hate to repeat the same idea but I'll point out the Special Editions and the like are mentioned after a hyphen or a dash. So why not the box sets? As I said have a note to list if there are differences between regions as well as a list of all the stories if they are separated. Again it'd be easier for the non-expert and be a DVD list with the serials mentioned. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The other way would be do it like the current box sets but have some of the stories be separate or partially separate. By that I mean list the box set title first then underneath it list the serial or serials. That way Beneath the Surface as well as New Beginnings plus anything else can be partial or completely separate but the box sets acknowledged. Obviously include a note with a proper list and regional differences. -Angeloz123.2.138.148 (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to add I really do prefer Lost in Time serials to be together as currently it's meaningless. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Time Flight/Arc of Infinity box is Region 2/4 only, so we don't need to worry about that if we're sticking to ones common to all regions. How about something like this for noting those released in Region 2-only box sets: Miremare 17:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Season	Story #	Serial name	Number and duration of episodes	R2 release date	R4 release date	R1 release date
20	125	Snakedance Only available as part of the Mara Tales box set in Region 2	4 × 25 min.	7 March 2011	7 April 2011	12 April 2011

One technicality is that Mara Tales is also in Region 4. From the top of my head only the Tegan Tales aren't listed the same way as Region 2 in Region 4 although they are in a Romans/The Chase unnamed type box set together. Plus Region 2 might have some non-box sets Region 4 doesn't always have. Though there are exceptions. Sorry to be pedantic. I'm tired so I'm not as sure on the single DVDs from box sets in Region 2. The single Special Editions of the TV Movie and Remembrance of the Daleks exist in Region 4 however. But I haven't memorised Region 2 so I might be wrong about it. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(Needed to do a minor edit sorry) -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I like Miremare's layout for the Snakedance example (though obviously with correct info for region 4). Though I think if we can do that for the rest of the page then I think we should do it for Lost in Time too. We can keep it in order and make it more clear it's not available separately. I still oppose the merging of Lost in Time. 165.228.203.166 (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But, that would be contrary to what we're doing with all the others - just to clarify, listing DVDs individually but noting where available in a box set is because these DVDs are available individually as well as in box sets (although the list is in serial order we're listing the DVDs, not the serials). This isn't the case with any of the Lost in Time episodes, in any region, so it's not consistent to do that, other than to list them as two volumes and note that they are also available together as one. Also yes, I meant Regions 2 and 4 in the Snakedance example above, as with most of these boxes. Miremare 06:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the new idea for Snakedance etc too. I'm staying out of the Lost in Time issue as I'm now undecided which I prefer. 124.183.122.83 (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC). Huh, my number has changed. I'm 139.168.132.246 124.183.122.83 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've changes the article to this new way of listing sets. Also I found several places online that sell Beneath the Surface stories separately in region 1 so there's no issue with that one.124.183.122.83 (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

New version looks good but there were a number of errors made in the change regarding region 1 releases. I believe I have caught them all. 165.228.203.166 (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Space and Time

Does anyone know if the space and time mini-eps were released as part of the series 6 part 1 set? I'm still waiting for it to come out here. 58.166.112.21 (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No they weren't. It's just the episodes and two monster files (Silence and Gangers). No other special features.203.45.112.118 (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)