Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Structural changes for episode list articles

The discussion at Talk:List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials#Requested move 3 January 2019 has raised multiple structural issues with the various lists of episodes across the project when it comes to the special episodes. I propose the following changes to make the lists more navigable, and adhere to sourced/verifiable delineations better:

Proposal 1: Remove The Five Doctors from Doctor Who (season 20), "Twice Upon a Time" from Doctor Who (series 10), and "Resolution" from Doctor Who (series 11).

A general agreement at Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)/Archive 1#Why is Last Christmas part of this series and a painstakingly-reached consensus at Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 15#Christmas specials to organise episodes as per DVD/Blu-Ray box sets seems to have gone out of the window the moment it became inconvenient, as the last two series' specials have not been included in any series box sets. I believe we should follow that consensus, which means removing these two specials from their series articles, and also apply it to The Five Doctors, which has absolutely no rationale for being included in season 20 (and rather significantly distorts that article, particularly the season's cast list). I am not suggesting any changes to order or inclusion in List of Doctor Who episodes, but recognise that the two articles would need editing to prevent these episodes from disappearing.

Proposal 2: Move Doctor Who (2013 specials) to Doctor Who 50th Anniversary and amend article accordingly, removing "Time of the Doctor".

Like the series categorisation of the above specials, this article seems to exist at its current title from a compulsion to place each episode in an arbitrary production group. The article in fact functions as a very useful rundown of the 50th anniversary celebration events, and per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA should be at a place where it will be recognisable, natural to search for and unambiguous. In this case, the 'box set' that provides the "2013 specials" grouping is a limited edition (now long out of print) set that combined not only "Day of the Doctor" and "Time of the Doctor", but also "Name of the Doctor" from series 7, An Adventure in Space and Time and other 50th anniversary material. "Time" was not aired or produced as part of the 50th anniversary, and there's nothing in the article that couldn't be easily moved into Time of the Doctor itself. I don't see any purpose in this article functioning as an arbitrary two-episode list in addition to the excellent material on the anniversary it includes.

Proposal 3: Merge List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials into List of Doctor Who specials.

I have a created the latter article on the suggestion of Andrewa at Talk:List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials#Question and alternative proposal, and also started a Merger proposal. An article on specials - not just Christmas and New Year's specials - is required to list the episodes that do not belong in any series spaces as per above, and Doctor Who (film) in addition. This also gives a clear structure for future specials to be added, regardless of the time of year they air - an important future-proofing measure now the run of Christmas Day specials has been broken. Template:Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials may also be moved to Template:Doctor Who specials.

Proposal 4: Amend Template:Doctor Who episodes to include List of Doctor Who specials and List of supplementary Doctor Who episodes in the header.

A simple proposal, but would help the navigation and clarity between the various list articles no end.

I hope these matters are clear to editors, and that the need for development is clear. All discussion is of course welcome. U-Mos (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Forum shopping? This users attempt to RM the Christmas and New Year's Specials page was just closed as no consensus after a long discussion. Are we rehashing the same request here? Randy Kryn (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned at proposal 3 above and at the merger proposal, the article creation/merger proposal was directly suggested by another user as an alternative way forward. The other three proposals are related, but new, and are not dependant on each other to proceed. U-Mos (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to all proposals. Let's go through them:

1. The tables at every season and series article are transcluded to List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), which means changes to any of those articles tables, such as removals and additions, are reflected in the episodes articles. As stated, the inclusion of Christmas specials in the series articles was a "general agreement", not a concrete consensus. If the three episodes are excluded from the series articles, then they will be excluded from the episodes articles, unless they are added manually, in which case, they will need to be listed in separate tables. Why these specific three? The "general agreement" was to list them with series primarily due to the boxsets, but also ease of access and a smaller littering of "special" tables, and thus all current and future specials should follow the same format.
2. The 2013 specials were just that - specials made and aired during 2013. Exactly the same as the 2008–2010 specials: specials made and aired during 2008–2010. Episodes are not "arbitrary production group", they are placed in the most relevant article. "Doctor Who 50th Anniversary" was not the name of the production of the episodes, and seems to be yet another attempt to create their own name for an article. "Time of the Doctor" was included in the "Doctor Who: 50th Anniversary Collector's Edition" home media release, regardless of whether it was a limited set or out of print. Should we be deleting and removing all articles of out of print content? Of course not, what a ridiculous idea. You can't want to follow the "box set" idea for several articles, and then abandon it for another article. You say that "there's nothing in the article that couldn't be easily moved into Time of the Doctor itself" - yes, there is. The row in the episode table. Again, removal of it would mean more unnecessary custom markup in the episodes article.
3. Talk:List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials#Question and alternative proposal closed with no consensus. The specials article should thus have not been created, as you had no consensus to change the article or create the specials article. If you wanted to make such an article, the draftspace is the correct place for it. Revisiting the merge of the annual specials to the "new" specials article so soon after the "no consensus" result could be seen as a sign of bad faith, that there are clearly so many editors that disagree with it, but you revisit the discussion with no further points to support it. "An article on specials [...] is required to list the episodes that do not belong in any series spaces as per above" - so, you don't want specials in season/series articles, but you want to create another totally meaningless article among all the ones we currently have. Makes no sense. Same argument for the move of the template.
4. {{Doctor Who episodes}} already includes all specials, and the articles reflects all episodes listed at the 1963–1989 and 2005–present episode articles. I fail to recall where (I'll search for it), but there as an FAQ on a talk page, asking "Has this episode been broadcast on BBC as an aired episode? If not, it does not belong in this article". As far as I can tell, nothing in List of supplementary Doctor Who episodes was actually broadcast, and released (mostly online, sometimes on home media) as just that - a "supplementary episode", not a broadcast episode.

These points seem to have been proposed to somebody with little to no experience in the released of Doctor Who content, and just as much experience in the articles related to this series. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that multiple other articles should remain awkwardly placed, overlapping and difficult to navigate in order to avoid a couple of basic edits at List of Doctor Who episodes (2005-present)? The false logic there is really rather astounding. Your response to proposals 2 and 4 shows that you've either misunderstood my overall rationale or just chosen to ignore it, so please have another read and attend to that rather than honing in on minutiae if you wish to discuss further. I.e. what's your solution to the problems identified (and I'm not the only one to recognise them, as you are aware)? I'd also remind you that no consensus is not the same as consensus not to move, and there is still blatantly a matter to resolve on the wider matter that came to light in the course of the previous discussion. And - for the third time in as many posts - I'll point out that I created the article and merge proposal on the direct recommendation of another user. U-Mos (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You had no consensus to make any of the proposed changes (which you named as a requested move but proposed as a move/create/change). It is your opinion that they are awkwardly placed. There are the episodes articles, the season/series articles, and the prominent annual specials article. You decided to then create the "regular" specials article on top of that, and you want to move episodes around and place them in other unnecessary locations when they are fine and compact as they are. I understand your rationale, but you clearly disagree with my points. I have read them, I do not need to again. My position stands firm. If you don't want to discuss them, that's fine, it only concretes my points further. If you do want to discuss them, then I'd be more than happy to, without all of this "no you don't understand, no you're wrong, no you have false logic, no it's not my proposal", etc. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1: I've already stated that I have no intention of altering the main episode lists, and am aware that it would need editing at source level to maintain that. Proposal 2: I am suggesting that that production focus is not beneficial, and the article already functions best as a 50th anniversary article. Its episode table is spurious to that function, and yes, would make much more sense in a full list of specials. The 2008-10 specials make a sensible categorisation, not least because of the amount of material about the reasons for their existence instead of a series etc. The 2013 specials article mimics that form, but it's a different situation and it doesn't quite work - especially as the two episodes were produced entirely separately (bar Peter Capaldi's cameo in "Day", if you really want to split hairs). We don't need a production period article purely for the sake of one. Proposal 3: Happy to admit that the earlier move proposal may not have been the best course of action in retrospect. This section is the wide-ranging project discussion you seemed to wish for there. Proposal 4: OK, maybe not the supplementary list then if that discussion has taken place previously. But List of Doctor Who specials, or indeed List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials, should still be there. I fear you'll respond to this in the same manner as before, and fall back on WP:BLUDGEON accusations if I attempt to clarify further, so I'll take a break now. Hoping to be pleasantly surprised when I return. U-Mos (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to removal the specials from the transcluded tables, then they needed to be added back into the episode lists through the episodes article, hence: altering is required.

Again, it is not a production focus. It is a grouping of accessibility, convenience and necessity. The article functions as a singular article for both the 50th anniversary and Christmas special of Smith's leaving. It lists gives details specific to its titles: the 2013 specials. One article can detail multiple things. You stated that they cannot be grouped together because ""Time" was not aired or produced as part of the 50th anniversary"; the article does not focus solely on the anniversary, and using the same alternate example, all stories of the 2008–2010 too were produced all separately ("especially as the two episodes were produced entirely separately"). However, not all articles need to exist for the same reason. Can you state why they should?

I didn't wish for anything. You created a requested move and proposed it as a move/create/change. I responded to that move/create/change. However, there was still no consensus for it, so raising exactly the same topic (just under a "proposal" heading) only a few hours later is not beneficial to either the community or encyclopedia as a whole.

All links in the {{Doctor Who episodes}} template already point to a number of articles where all episodes are listed (outside of the template itself), and thus that is all that is needed. The article is, however, already included at {{Doctor Who}}. I certainly did reply in the same manner, by expressing and detailing my opposition to your proposals and plans. Just because you don't like the opposition, and just because I don't support your proposals, doesn't meant that it's against you personally. You can assume what I'm going to do and make an attack out of it all, but I stand by the concluding statement of my initial opposition. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

To pick up one one aspect of this, regarding the 2013 specials and a grouping of accessibility, convenience and necessity. If your focus is the accessibility, convenience and necessity for editors, sure, but if it's accessibility, convenience and necessity for readers - as WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is concerned with - it's coming up short. You are right that not all articles need to exist for the same reason: the excellent reasons for Doctor Who (2008-10 specials) to exist and treat those non-series episodes in the manner of a series (NB The last three of those five were very much produced together, and all but one were devised as a sequence) do not apply to 2013. The two-episode synopsis table there simply serves no purpose, other than to be transcluded into another article (same issue at Doctor Who (season 20), if not the others), and it distorts an article that could be an accessible and convenient collation of the major event of the show's 50th anniversary - something users are much more likely to search for. I don't think that's good enough. U-Mos (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, only one aspect? But there were and are so many. If a reader is looking up the 50th anniversary, how do you know that aren't looking for The Day of the Doctor? That episode basically encompasses the 50th anniversary. Do you have a source that backs up that they are only looking for 50th anniversary content? Or is it just your personal opinion that that's what they're wanting? Yes, one of the main purposes of the table is to be transcluded. Another purpose is to list the episodes in a tabular format, just like the other 800-odd episodes, so that they have an equal chance at being displayed with the typical row information and short summary. In my opinion, it's clear that you won't get a firm consensus from all Doctor Who project editors. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

As you've asked, I've dipped into Google trends: [1]. "Doctor Who 50th Anniversary" a more widely searched term, by a very long way, at every point over the last five years. A reader might well be searching for Day of the Doctor, in which case they could find that main article from the page, just like someone searching for "Doctor Who series 4" might actually be looking for The Fires of Pompeii. Unless you're suggesting that all 50th anniversary information is put in Day of the Doctor, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. As you know, my preference is to have all tabulated synopses that don't fit into series articles listed in List of Doctor Who specials. But if that's not to be, this article should still fulfil its potential rather than existing as a hotchpotch to the convenience of editors, not readers. Don't see any issue with having a synopsis in List of Doctor Who episodes (2005-present) or, indeed, not at all (like Doctor Who (film)) if a full specials list is not instigated. U-Mos (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose It ain't broke so it doesn't need these non-fixes. MarnetteD|Talk 20:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

First things first

This is a complex and controversial discussion, obviously, and won't IMO be resolved quickly.

From a reader's point of view, what is most needed is:

• Coverage. We want to cover every episode and spinoff.
• Navigation. We want to get the reader to the information they want without requiring them to learn a great deal of jargon along the way.

I confess I'm naive as to the terminology, but that has advantages. I can help with the idiot testing of proposed list titles, for example.

The most urgent need I see is an overall, master list of all the story arcs, in whatever medium. Or if it already exists and I've missed it, link to it prominently from all the more detailed lists. This will be of immediate benefit to the reader, and will also enable us to identify gaps in the coverage. It can and probably should transclude material also used in other lists etc, but that's a frill not a basic requirement.

The technicalities of existing list structures, templates etc are obviously important. But we should not be bound by them if they hinder providing basic coverage and navigation, however much past work they may represent. Yes, that's a big ask.

I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage task force#List guidelines reads Until a new guideline/how-to is made, simply follow the example of other Featured lists. And that there's at least one of these in the topic area of Doctor Who. Andrewa (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Coverage of every episode: the two episode articles (classic and revived eras) do just that. Between the two, every broadcast episode of Doctor Who is listed. Navigation: that's what we have navboxes for. A reader can visit that navbox, and click on any related article. The two episode articles also contain a "See also" list of related links. We used to have a list of story arcs of the program at List of Doctor Who story arcs / Story arcs in Doctor Who / Doctor Who story arcs (I fail to remember which one originally), but the content was deleted and turned into redirects (can't remember who by, pretty sure it was because the articles were entirely in-universe and loaded with original research), and then the redirects were nominated for deletion. Which Doctor Who article is a featured list? Only one I can find is List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but please read what I said... We want to cover every episode and spinoff. I'm not sure what the correct term is to mean episodes, specials, and anything else that is filmed... that's what I really wanted to say, and was why I went looking to the TV Wikiproject. Any suggestions, anyone? Episode and spinoff is a bit too broad.

Because, that is getting right back to the original issue. Surely there's a term in the literature covering all and only such things? And that is one thing we need here.

Yes, that's the list I saw. Not very helpful probably. Andrewa (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

And why do "we" want to do that? Spinoffs are detailed in the primary Doctor Who article and its spinoff article, and their respective episodes are all covered in their own articles. I mentioned this earlier, I fail to recall where (I'll search for it), but there as an FAQ on a talk page, asking "Has this episode been broadcast on BBC as an aired episode? If not, it does not belong in this article". The List of Doctor Who serials (when it was called that) used to include all the supplementary episodes all in the same article, but then consensus determined to split it off into its own episode. Having hundreds, if not over a thousand episodes, on the same article is not as beneficial as you might believe. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing Having hundreds, if not over a thousand episodes, on the same article (whatever that might mean). All I'm proposing is that we have a logical approach. This approach should of course be based on sources rather than on editors' personal views as to the best way to group this enormous amount of information. Possibly this has been the problem in the past?

Consensus can change, but by all means refer to relevant past discussions, they are important to avoid reinventing the wheel. Andrewa (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

No explanation has yet been given as to why we should group this enormous amount of information. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps developing the disambiguation of List of Doctor Who episodes would help? That could easily say more about these lists - I see on writing this that List of supplementary Doctor Who episodes and List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials have just been added there, but relegated to 'see also'. Identifying the structure there and positioning it as an overview with main links may be a way forward? U-Mos (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who episodes is not a disambiguation article. It is a set index of two articles - the two episodes articles, split between the two primary production eras. Why they have been added there, I'm not sure. If a deletion of the List of Doctor Who specials redirect is required to not list them, then I'll happily request its speedy deletion. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, nobody is disputing what the article is, but we are discussing what it could and should be. Seems a good compromise between the navigation issues brought up and your viewpoint that the articles' structure should remain as it is. (And, as a very experienced editor with less knowledge of the show and the WikiProject's history - something that it should not be a requirement to navigate the pages - Andrewa's perspective is extremely useful, and it's rather unpleasant to see it dismissed offhand.) I'm glad to see you haven't requested that speedy deletion and removed the links from List of Doctor Who episodes, as this would be a very disruptive move to make while discussion is ongoing. @Bilorv: As the person who added those links, do you have anything to add? U-Mos (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Why they have been added there, I'm not sure. If a deletion of the List of Doctor Who specials redirect is required to not list them, then I'll happily request its speedy deletion. I don't understand why you wish to make it impossible to navigate between lists of Doctor Who episodes and content. Obviously neither of the previously listed articles were "List[s] of Doctor Who specials" and obviously both of the articles I listed could be described as "specials" by a layperson wishing to find them. (In fact, List of supplementary Doctor Who episodes should have been listed already as it contains in its title the phrase "List of Doctor Who episodes".) No, deletion of the redirect would be counterproductive. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that the question is asked, but the simple explanation is that it's all on the general topic of Doctor Who, but there's so much of it that it's useful to have several different pages in the article namespace, linking to each other... as we do.

And these lists are useful ways of presenting much of the information. And the more logical their scopes are, and the more accurately their titles reflect their scopes, the more useful they are. Andrewa (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Spin-offs are not Doctor Who. Yes, they are Doctor Who-related. No, their episodes are not Doctor Who episodes. If you want a list of the spin-offs, then we have Doctor Who spin-offs readily available for you. I strongly recommend taking a read of WP:NOT. For example, Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics; that is, just having a list just to have a conglomeration of all of the episodes. Can you provide an existing and stable version of an article that lists all episodes for a parent series and all of its spinoffs? In 4.5 years of editing here, I have never come across such a thing. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Andrewa, please correct me if I'm wrong, but from the context above I believe it's the supplementary episodes being referred to, not Torchwood et al. U-Mos (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably. Where exactly are these being referred to? But the terminology seems to be part of the problem, which is very relevant as this all came out of an RM request. Correct that I wan't referring to Torchwood in anything I've written previously. That seems to be best seen as a different show, perhaps there's a parallel to Yes Prime Minister which is and isn't Yes Minister, but Torchwood seems to be even more loosely connected. So obviously spinoff is too broad a term, as I suggested before. Is there a better one? (Preferably one used in sources rather than just made up by Wikipedians. But even a made-up term would be better than none... there's no need to ban OR in talk namespaces, just in articles.) Andrewa (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Spin-offs are not Doctor Who. Very interesting claim. Maybe a terminology problem, and very relevant if so, see above. Andrewa (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a very correct claim, though. Spin-offs refer to material created outside of, but related to, Doctor Who. That includes Torchwood, Doctor Who Confidential, The Sarah Jane Adventures, and Class (as well as the several comics, novels, films, audio productions, stage plays, and webcasts). As Alex said, spin-offs are not Doctor Who, so they should not be included in either of the Lists of Doctor Who episodes—they already have their own article, which is enough. – Rhain ☔ 00:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

OK... so I used the wrong term (as I suspected and I said this both at the time and since).

But nobody is suggesting that comics, novels, films, audio productions, stage plays, and webcasts should be included in the lists of Doctor Who episodes (my emphasis). Are they? Who and where?

The question that started all this is about other videos made as part of the same... um... whatchamacallit ... (please tell me what the correct term is, there must be one and I don't want to be grossly misunderstood again) such as the specials. Perhaps they're not strictly episodes (reliable sources, please?) but whatever they are, surely they are Doctor Who?

Of course if there are reliable secondary sources that say that these specials (possibly etc) aren't even Doctor Who, then we need to take that into account (and cite them in the article namespace too... that would be very interesting!). But are there? I confess I'm a bit sceptical. Happy to be proven wrong, in fact I'd welcome that as progress.

I suspect there's an issue of canonicity underlying at least part of this. In respect to canonicity, deciding what is original research can be tricky. It's not just our own OR that is banned from the article namespace. It's anyone's, and that includes that of fanclubs and, dare I say it, WikiProjects. Which may be part of the problem here. (Of course some fanclubs do publish reliable secondary sources, but they also often publish primary-source material, which can be used but with caution.) Andrewa (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources and terminology

Seeing that nobody has taken the opportunity to clarify the terminology, I decided to look for sources myself.

I was a bit surprised by the results I admit. A google on "Doctor Who" -Wikipedia Christmas gave as the very first hit vulture.com, which seems a reliable source, and which calls the Christmas specials episodes! Check it if you like. I'd naively assumed that sources would back up what is assumed above that they are not called episodes, although no sources were cited. I should perhaps have been more wary.

So I suggest we take a step back, and look for sources. Despite what some may see wp:consensus as authorising, (English) Wikipedia does not go by the personal preferences of contributors however numerous or unanimous. We go by reliable (English language) secondary sources.

So, where did this idea that the specials are not episodes come from? (I'm assuming we can ignore the suggestion above that they're not even Doctor Who, but if anyone wants to defend that, again sources please.) Andrewa (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Who stated that episodes aren't specials? We're saying that spin-offs aren't Doctor Who. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

OK... So the specials are episodes? (I think that's what you mean... not all episodes are specials.) Yes, I did get the impression that this was not agreed, somewhere in the discussion, perhaps I was mistaken. In any case, that is cleared up.

Agree that spin-offs (as that article describes them) are not Doctor Who.

I'd still like to clear up the matter of the several comics, novels, films, audio productions, stage plays, and webcasts. [2] That seems a bit broad to me. Andrewa (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

It is true there is a lot of unhelpful overlap in terminology at times. "Episodes" of Doctor Who certainly includes the specials as designated currently - which are no longer confused with supplementary episodes (DVD scenes, charity mini-episodes, 'prequels') since the recent move of that page that I conducted. Spin-offs, in the project as described by Doctor Who spin-offs, encompasses the narratively related TV shows (Torchwood, The Sarah Jane Adventures, Class (TV series)) and other media - comics, Big Finish audios, novels, whatever. These may or may not be under the Doctor Who name or other - Big Finish, for instance, does a 'main range' with TV Doctors under the 'Doctor Who' name, as well as a large number of ranges starring subsidiary Who characters such as Jago & Litefoot, The Diary of River Song, etc. etc. Thinking about it, I would rather see "television spin-offs" separated from "other media spin-offs" (or however else we choose to distinguish them). I don't see the benefit of lumping them together - again, other than to make life easier for editors who already know the project. U-Mos (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Season articles layout change

Please be aware that a number of editors plan to change the layout of the episode tables given in the classic-era season articles, without any notification or further discussion; the discussion can be found at Module talk:Episode list#Sandbox version update, and the proposed layout can be seen at Special:Permalink/881631649#Serials. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"Seasons" and "Series": Notes in article space; counts in infobox

From what I gather from the many discussions of the "season versus series" quirk across the various Doctor Who-related talk pages, the principal reason not to address it in the articles themselves (those I've looked at with that in mind, anyway), but only "behind the scenes" (project MOS, talk page FAQs, wikitext comments, et cetera), appears to be that the circumstance, in and of itself, lacks notability. I have no opinion on that.

However, common sense suggests that when you follow a convention that is noticeable and isn't self-explanatory, you should explain it, otherwise the uniniated reader may end up being unnecessarily confused. IMO, this is such a case: It's unusual for a TV series to consist of "seasons" as well as "series", so someone who's not already familiar with the background will likely wonder whether there is some qualitative difference underpinning the word choices, or whether it's merely a matter of idiosyncratic terminology, or whatever. By using the convention, you're implicitly raising that question - so you ought to provide an answer along with it.

As for supplying separate counts of "seasons" and "series" in the infobox in the Doctor Who article (and elsewhere?), the same point holds, but even more so. At minimum, the difference needs to be explained (inline or as a footnote), if there is one. That being said, combining the two fields into one seems like a much better solution, no matter what the combined field is called. The current situation strikes me as analogous to an infobox about a bridge crossing from one country into another as saying it's "50 metres plus 150 feet" long, based on the circumstance that one country uses metric and the other imperial measures: True, as for as it goes, but rather badly missing the point of an infobox, which is to provide the basic facts ("how long is the bridge") in a basic way (using as few figures and sets of units as necessary).

In further support of this approach:

• Seasons and series are combined into a single category, Category:Doctor Who series, as they should be. WhIch of the two terms is used as the category title is secondary.
• Template:Infobox television documentation explcitly says to "[u]se one or the other, not both" of the num_seasons and num_series parameters.
• The num_episodes parameter is routinely used to mention stuff that's a bit different, such as specials, TV movies, webisodes, et cetera. There's no reason not to approach the season/series counts in that vein.

Ordinarily, I'd consider those minor changes which I'd go ahead and make myself, but the amount and intensity of discussion about this point made me think that would not be advisable in this case. ;)

- 89.183.221.246 (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The WP:CONSENSUS (which is longstanding well over a decade now) is to use both terms. The reasoning for this is well referenced. As to the template documentation this is why WP:IAR exists. The bridge analogy is pure sophistry and is not useful. MarnetteD|Talk 23:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology. And if you look at the wikicode for {{Infobox television}}, you'll find that it was deliberately set to allow both for Doctor Who. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, once one reads the project MOS, everything makes perfect sense. So why not make that information easily accessible to the casual reader, who, it seems to me, is just as likely to wonder about it as an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter? The notability argument (OP, first paragraph) may militate towards keeping that information out of the body text, but how applicable is it to footnotes and the like aimed at improving the very clarity of the article itself? Not at all, I should think, considering that the use of such notes across Wikipedia articles is fairly ubiquitous.

- 89.183.221.246 (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Season article modules

Bringing to attention the matter I raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Arbitrary break: The current module creates false information for The Daleks' Master Plan at Doctor Who (season 3) and The Mind Robber at Doctor Who (season 6), whose different episodes were written by different people. The module needs to allow for different entries in the separate rows where necessary (I have literally no idea how or even where to do this). Thanks, U-Mos (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Already does now. Fixed last week. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, relevant articles edited. Minor note: the coding won't allow links to appear for writers of later episodes in the serial, even if it's the first instance of their name. U-Mos (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: this was your implementation with the "removeWikilinks" function. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it was, but it was created when there were no writer_# and directer_# parameters. There could be several ways to handle this. One option could be maybe to create 2 empty arrays (one for director, one for writer) then add to it when a new string appears and if it already is listed, delink. Another option is to only use the current code for non-numbered parameters (so DirectedBy, not DirectedBy_#) and the editor adding the episode list data is responsible for not overlinking any _# parameter. --Gonnym (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The latter seems like a good solution to me. In the articles I edited, the links are already only included where needed. U-Mos (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Doctor Who Portal

I'm involved in a related British TV programme and came across the Portal:Doctor Who. I made a small change to the "What's happening" section (about 2020 series 12 coming) but that section does seem a tad redundant without better relevant dated information. Also a link on that section pointed outside the portal and Wikipedia which is not the general purpose of a portal (I removed it). Just wondering if anyone on this project is interested in maintaining/curating that portal. There's plenty of scope and a good example is Portal:Star Trek. Londonclanger (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion at Template talk:Doctor Who episodes#Missing episodes

Should a link to the missing episodes page continue to be linked on the {{Doctor Who episodes}} template? Discussion at the above link. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for writers on series 12

Can some editors take a look at Talk:Doctor Who (series 12)#Unreliable source for writers and try to reach a consensus about what information should be included? I've said my piece there and am happy to leave it to others, but if my edit is to stay reverted, I'd like that to be the decision of more than one editor. Thanks. Amedee123 (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Mass change from "The Doctor" to "the Xth Doctor" by User:WikiEditor73

I just noticed that WikiEditor73 (talk · contribs) has been changing "The Doctor" to "the Xth Doctor" in a large number of articles without specifying a reason why. Is there any MOS for this project that prefers one description of the Doctor in articles to another? Regards SoWhy 12:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Mass change from "Sarah" to "Sarah Jane" by User:WikiEditor73

WikiEditor73 (talk · contribs) has also embarked on a mass change of "Sarah" to "Sarah Jane", in reference to Sarah Jane Smith, with no apparent consensus. I reverted one change (as it had previously been reverted by another editor) but now feel it should be questioned more widely, given the breadth of his edits. Is there any stylistic basis for always referring to the character of Sarah in body text as "Sarah Jane"? Bear in mind that this is her middle name and not a double-barrelled "Sarah-Jane". It seems odd to me, but am happy to be corrected if there is a consensus for this. Cnbrb (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: WP:MIDDLENAME advises that the most common name is used for people, so the question really is if the character is most frequently addressed in episode scripts as "Sarah" or "Sarah Jane". Cnbrb (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: in the Classic series, she's mostly "Sarah" ("Four men, Sarah. Five, if you include Professor Scarman himself".). "Sarah Jane" is a New Series change. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh well, clearly nobody actually cares one way or another, so I'll just let him get on with it. Cnbrb (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Doctor Who navbox

We need to retitle Template:Doctor Who navbox to something that actually titles it as a navbox for incarnations of the Doctor, thus to disambiguate it from Template:Doctor Who. Thoughts? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"The End of Time"

Should The End of Time really be displayed in italics? WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology states that serials are A group of episodes from the classic series which together form a single story. (emphasis mine) This isn't a classic series episode, nor does the article make any reference to it being a serial at all, except for the one mention of "serial" in the infobox header. I think it should be displayed as "The End of Time", (and thus "The End of Time: Part One" and "The End of Time: Part Two" at Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) and related articles). The same applies to "Spyfall" at Doctor Who (series 12), where no reliable source currently states its status as a "serial", hence its listing in quotes at the moment. Simply having the same title across two episodes does not automatically make the episode a serial.

Serial (radio and television) supports this, and lists its own definition, which does not conform with the above format of "The End of Time":

• Serials typically follow main story arcs that span entire television seasons or even the full run of the series, which distinguishes them from traditional episodic television that relies on more stand-alone episodes.
• In British television, the term serial is also synonymous with the American term miniseries – a short-run series with one title and plot.
• In other cases, perhaps most famously the original series of Doctor Who (1963–89), the programme is made up of a continuing series of different serials.

-- /Alex/₂₁ 08:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and formatting several occurrences of the episode to quotes; if there's no opposition to the edits or this discussion, I'll go ahead and continue with the rest. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21 While I see what you are getting at I would point out that it is a two parter. Up to now all two parters whether from the classic or the current series get italics. See The Edge of Destruction, The Sontaran Experiment, Black Orchid (Doctor Who) as well as all of the two parters in Doctor Who (season 22). This will also effect all of the stories in The Sarah Jane Adventures. Are you proposing to change the long standing WP:CONSENSUS that these all of these stories get italics? If so I would prefer a full fledged WP:RFC to make a change that is going to effect the consistency of such a large number of articles. MarnetteD|Talk 04:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I should add that, without digging into all of the relevant histories, this may be a situation where the DW wikiproject set its MOS regarding the use of italics/quotes over a decade ago. Tthe TV project (among others) may have changed or updated their guidelines in the intervening years. MarnetteD|Talk 04:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I'm not requesting the change of the formatting of those actual-serials; I am debating the status of "The End of Time" as a "serial", or just a two-part episode. The links you gave are all serials of the classic series, which are all reliably sourced to be classified as "serials". Same as The Sarah Jane Adventures, hence the title of List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials. As I stated in my original post, simply being a two partner does not make it a serial. "The End of Time" has no reliable sources or even mention in its article that it is a serial. "Serial" doesn't come up once. Not all two partners from the current series get italics; see List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)#ep166a and its following episode; yes, they have different titles, but they are a two partner, is it not? It does not use italics. "The End of Time" is the only episode with the same title (up until "Spyfall"), and italics are only used for serials, quotes for episodes. Thus, "The End of Time" is not a serial, simply a two-part episode, as we've had dozens of throughout the revived era.

To reply to your add-on comment, WP:DW's MoS even states that A group of episodes from the classic series which together form a single story. "The End of Time" is not a classic series story and hence not a serial. It even goes on to say The article name, when first mentioned, should be [...] bolded and italicised if it is a serial title. and furthermore Where mentioned in subsequent text, serial titles from the classic series, The Sarah Jane Adventures or any other multi-episode series or serial such as The Talons of Weng-Chiang or Torchwood: Miracle Day, should be italicised. Episode titles from the new series or Torchwood, such as "Rose", "The Night of the Doctor" or "The New World", as well as individual episodes within serials from the classic series such as "The Cave of Skulls", should be put in quotation marks. This is in line with the Wikipedia Manual of Style on titles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The big diff with TEoT in regards to the revived series is that it uses the same title for both episode. There are thematic and story connections to stories that come before and after so IMO it fits the serial definition for italics in the DW projects definition. But that is just me. That is why I would prefer more input than just yours and mine :-) MarnetteD|Talk 04:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC) MarnetteD|Talk 04:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That's true, regarding the connections. But simply because it has the same title across the episodes, does not make it a serial. All thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs; all serials are multi-part stories but not all multi-part stories are serials. It doesn't fix WP:DW's definition of a serial, as WP:DW's MoS mentions several times that serials are classic-era stories. TEoT is not a classic-era story. Nor does, as I've said, TEoT's article make any mention of it being a serial. Same for the upcoming "Spyfall"; it will be shown in two identical-title parts, but I've come across absolutely zero sources which call it a serial. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Any further comments? From anyone? -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

If there are no further comments supporting the status of the "The End of Time" as a serial, in the same format as the upcoming "Spyfall", then I will continue to update the episodes' formatting. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late to the party here but this is simply a load of cobblers; there is no difference given here between when a serial isn't a serial and when it's a "two-part story". If the MoS says that classic eras are serials, that needs updating more than anything else. This just confuses everything as to how End of Time and Spyfall are not given italics, whereas Black Orchid, Survival, et al are. It just seems like yet another arbitrary effort to create more classic/new division which, frankly, isn't needed. See also: Mission to the Unknown. Not italics, because it's one part. You don't actually provide any explanation for why The End of Time (and Spyfall) isn't a serial, other than the unqualified statement serials aren't present in NuWho. Which isn't correct in my view. Spa-Franks (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As I asked in the initial post: are there reliable sources that refer to "The End of Time" as a serial? I've come across zero sources that refer to "Spyfall" as a serial. Assuming so simply by how many episodes are part of it would be a textbook WP:OR violation. "Mission to the Unknown" is a singular episode, so yes, correct, quotes instead of italics. Counterpoint, however: The Five Doctors, italics but still a singular episode. All thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs; all serials are multi-part stories but not all multi-part stories are serials. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

But there's equally no source for your description of "all serials are multi-part stories but not all multi-part stories are serials". Five Doctors really ought to be in quotes, frankly. Otherwise this is needless complication for the sake of it. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there is. I defined the term "serial" through our own article for it, in my very first post. Needless complication? You mean italics for classic, quotes for revived? Terrible complicated, unlike mixing quotes and italics during an era with an episode that cannot be cited as a serial at all. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Series 13 draft article

This is a notice that there is a draft for Series 13 at Draft:Doctor Who (series 13) until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Doctors

Following on from the conversation at Talk:Name of the Doctor#John Hurt in infobox, and the ramifications to Fugitive of the Judoon and - in all likelihood - future episodes, this is a central discussion to clarify the consensus on when exactly to list a Doctor in an episode infobox under the top 'Doctor' heading. I'm still struggling to see the consistency in some matters - e.g. why is John Hurt not listed in The Name of the Doctor for not being a series lead, but is in Day of the Doctor? If it's series leads at any point that they make a credited appearance, per Day of the Doctor (which excludes the uncredited Peter Capaldi), why is Patrick Troughton listed at The Tenth Planet? Or is the consensus a combination of series lead status, credit and length of appearance, in which case couldn't we make it a bit simpler? Whatever the consensus, I think it would be a good idea to have it as a clear part of the project guidelines so we all know where we stand whenever Jo Martin next shows up... U-Mos (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

At least one reason I can come up with is that in generally, every DW story is typically consider a story in that actor's tenure on the show. "City of Death" is a Baker episode, "Caves of Androzani" is a Davidson one, and so on. I realize this breaks for how we currently present "The Three Doctors", "The Five Doctors" and "The Two Doctors", but this may be a reason to change them (eg 5 Doctors being a Davidson episode). When taken this way, neither Hurt nor Capaldi would be listed under "Doctor" though certainly can be listed as a guest. This way, no matter how big or small the part, only the Doctor in that current tenure is listed as the Doctor and removes a lot of arguments. (That's of course until they push a mid-show regeneration .... ) --Masem (t) 16:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

She was credited as The Doctor (and separately as Ruth), Chibnall has been clear he's serious that she's The Doctor. My feeling is if someone is there as the Doctor for more than a fleeting moment (as most Doctors were in Day of the Doctor), they should be listed as a Doctor for that story. So list just Capaldi for Deep Breath, but list Capaldi, Bradley and Whittaker for Twice Upon a Time. In reference to Fugitive of the Judoon specifically, I'd go so far as to list Jo Martin twice (since she was, of course, credited twice in the show both as Ruth and as the Doctor).--Aresef (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Aresef. Jo Martin and John Hurt should both be listed as the Doctor in each episode they appear in. WordwizardW (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

In which episode was Jo Martin credited in a lead role as the Doctor? (Key words: "lead role".) -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, here's a propsal to try and nudge this along: I suggest we simplify matters and list only Doctors credited in the main cast for that episode. From the current situation, this would downgrade the incoming Doctors in regeneration episodes (e.g. Twice Upon a Time (Doctor Who), The Tenth Planet), and make no changes to multi-Doctor episodes. Without opening titles credits, Peter Davison and Colin Baker do get top-line credits in Logopolis and The Caves of Androzani, but I can think we can WP:COMMONSENSE that and leave them with the other cast to stay consistent. Thoughts? U-Mos (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I wonder if any changes are needed to the Dr Who MOS will help with this. MarnetteD|Talk 03:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Right, I've been WP:BOLD and made the proposed changes. U-Mos (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion relevant to this project

The members of this project will want to take a look at this thread Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Series. If changes are made it will have a big effect on this projects articles. It will also impact the use of the term season for the 1963 through 1989 pages. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 06:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about article "List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989)"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989)#Linking inconsistencies, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. – Rhain ☔ 22:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

William Hartnell

At William Hartnell, the insistence by IPs on inclusion of disinformation has flared up again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

John Wayne's alleged racist comments, led to a heated Twitter debate after going viral there, and led to it being more known by people in the media and public and more controversy surrounding him then it had been in his interview in 1971. Hartnell is now trending on twitter. The most concrete evidence of such views actually comes from his own granddaughter, Jessica Carney, who wrote the biography Who's There? The Life and Career of William Hartnell, and stated that Hartnell did express concerns about "foreigners", but that "all those loudly expressed opinions were contradicted by his behaviour on a personal level. [...] if he liked someone, they weren't a foreigner, they were a friend." Carney is an excellent source, and I see no problems with the others cited in these few lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.227.38 (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of anti-Semitism and racism came from co stars that worked with Hartnell like Nicholas Courtney and Anneke Wills - they're not smears. Nobody's saying he was a bad person, or definitely a racist, or anything like that - I have a great deal admiration for Hartnell, but it still just isn't right for the Wikipedia article to delete information this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.227.38 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Besides, we have allowed controversy and accusations of racism surrounding other beloved celebrities on here, as well as their defenders, such as Wayne, Disney, and Churchill. If the Hartnell allegations are considered not noteworthy enough, we should still take into consideration the first hand sources surrounding them and debate on whether they are notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.227.38 (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

See also User talk:Redrose64#William Hartnell and WP:OTHERCONTENT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have taken it to the talk page to see if we can reach a consensus on this matter. Talk:William_Hartnell#Alleged_racism 79.69.227.38 (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

University of Gallifrey

Also posted at Talk:Gallifrey#University?

My source for adding this to List of fictional British and Irish universities has been removed as not being a WP:RS. If anyone has a better source, please add it. The only other sources I can find are dozens of vendors of teeshirts etc. While it could be argued that it's not "British or Irish" I think its cultural roots place it there, along with University of Maximegalon and the Unseen University, at least until someone creates List of fictional extraterrestrial universities or similar! PamD 12:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It literally was briefly mentioned in only two obscure works--an audio play and a comic book. It doesn't have much cultural significance (weight). DonQuixote (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source or not, it doesn't qualify for the list for the simple reason that Gallifrey, being an extraterrestrial planet (albeit fictional), is not in either Great Britain or Ireland. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Dalek Emperor

The Master (Doctor Who) links to the DAB page Dalek Emperor. Can any expert help solve this puzzle by specifying which one this is? Narky Blert (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s the Dalek Emperor, from Remembrance of the Daleks. Sprite96 (talk)

@Sprite96: It's discussing the War Master audio series, which features the Dalek Emperor from "The Parting of the Ways". I fixed it last week. – Rhain ☔ 23:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, but looking at it again I thought it referred to the Eternity Clock Dalek Emperor from Doctor Who: The Eternity Clock. Go figure... Sprite96 (talk)

I don't believe the Master appeared in The Eternity Clock, actually, but I understand the confusion. – Rhain ☔ 00:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Pertwee-era archive format listings need updating?

In the past several years a number of Pertwee episodes, notably The Claws of Axos parts 2 and three and all seven episodes of Inferno (and there may well be other examples) have undergone a process prior to DVD special edition release where, to quote the articles on the above two stories, "The quality of the NTSC material was improved by combining colour from the Reverse Standards Conversion with geometrically-corrected picture information from the remastered black-and-white film recordings, and then applying VidFIRE to restore the smooth 'video look'."- in effect the same process as used previously on The Silurians, Terror of the Autons and The Daemons pts 1,2,3 and 5 but with the professional TV tapes instead of Tom Lundy's off-air recordings.
Bearing this in mind, shouldn't the Archive status listings of Inferno 1-7 and The Claws Of Axos 2 and 3 (and any other examples of this) be altered from "RSC converted (NTSC-to-PAL)" as they now are, to "PAL D3 colour restoration" as per Terror of The Autons etc? 165.225.81.21 (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Portal:Doctor Who

You're invited to join the discussion at Portal talk:Doctor Who § 2020 June overhaul. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Tenure in infoboxes

The infoboxes on the articles for the various incarnations of the Doctor are inconsistent in how they identify tenure start and end dates. It was suggested I raise this issue here to gauge consensus.

• All infoboxes list the first and last serial in which that Doctor was the series lead (i.e., not brief post-regeneration appearances).
• The table at The Doctor (Doctor Who) § Actors lists dates corresponding to the above episodes.
• The Fifth Doctor's tenure start date is listed as 4 January 1982 (Castrovalva ).
• The Tenth Doctor's tenure start date is listed as 25 December 2001 (The Christmas Invasion).
• The Eleventh Doctor's tenure start date is listed as 3 April 2010 (The Eleventh Hour).
• The Twelfth Doctor's tenure start date is listed as 23 August 2014 (Deep Breath).
• The Thirteenth Doctor's tenure start date is listed as 7 October 2018 (The Woman Who Fell to Earth).

So far so good. All of the above uses a consistent approach based on when that Doctor appeared as series lead, which I think is the clearest approach for the reader. However, the following diverge from that pattern:

• The Second Doctor's tenure start date is listed as 29 October 1966 (his brief appearance at the end of The Tenth Planet).
• The Fourth Doctor's tenure start date is listed as 8 June 1974 (his brief appearance at the end of Planet of the Spiders).
• The Sixth Doctor's tenure start date is listed as 16 March 1984 (his brief appearance at the end of The Caves of Androzani).

Note that several Doctors' first appearance was as series lead (1, 3, 7, 8, 9), rather than in a brief post-regeneration scene, so this doesn't really apply to those articles.--Trystan (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• • I would agree: series lead makes the most sense as its an objective measure (name listed in opening credits? No, then not lead). --Masem (t) 00:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Looks like this is one of those "different criteria were applied in different ways at different times" items that can happen over the years on WikiP. I don't know if any of them ever were written into WP:WHO/MOS. Bringing them into line based on when each person became the series lead is fine but it would be good to make sure each individual Doctor's article mentions the date they were first seen onscreen during a regeneration somewhere in the body of the article. I haven't looked so maybe this has already been done but, if there are any articles that don't have this info please feel free to add it. MarnetteD|Talk 00:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oops - I forgot to note that actor names weren't in the opening credits until the TV Movie but I don't think that changes what we are trying to achieve here. MarnetteD|Talk

Off the top of my head, Patrick Troughton and Tom Baker's faces are glimpsed at the very end of their predecessor's last stories and they are uncredited. Peter Davison has a subsequent shot of him rising slightly and he is credited second on the episode. Colin Baker has several lines, takes first credit and even has his face in place of Davison's on the latter's last episode. For the modern series each new Doctor has appeared onscreen with a few lines and a credit at the end of the cast for their predecessor's last episode. So really it's Colin Baker that's the hard case but others were pretty clearly secondary at most. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It's Davison's face at the beginning of the episode and Baker's face at the end. While Baker is credited first in the closing credits following his introduction, I think almost everyone would agree that Davison is the lead for that episode. Otherwise, Davison's tenure would end a day earlier with the airing of Part 3 of The Caves of Androzani, which would be a confusing way of presenting it.--Trystan (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Is cleanup needed?

Today this move happened. It was done as part of the creation of this DAB State of Decay. First I'm not sure a DAB page is needed for two articles though I have seen them occasionally. If the move is okay then the Dr Who story probably needs another move since it is four episodes not one. Any input will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 18:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The disambiguation page is probably unnecessary, but the video game is likely the primary topic anyway, so either way the Doctor Who serial probably needed to change. But you're right, the Doctor Who serial was moved incorrectly. I've added a technical request, since the desired target redirects to the disambiguation page too. – Rhain ☔ 02:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I checked pageviews for both articles and believed that the video game is more likely to be the primary topic (maybe it should be moved to State of Decay without the video game disambiguation). In my native language, TV episode and serial are the same thing, so I am sorry for mixing them up. OceanHok (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

OceanHok, have you updated incoming links to State of Decay to State of Decay (Doctor Who)? This is expected after you've moved an article and created a disambiguation page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

All dab links are fixed. I turned the disabmiguation page into an article about the video game series, which should be the real primary target, at least for now. OceanHok (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone and for performing the needed cleanup. As an ancient verging on doddering Dr Who fan I do have to say that claiming any other "state of decay" is the primary topic is an outrage - an outrage I tells ya :-) Just kidding. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 16:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

IP 197.83.246.23 is deleting links to Tardis Data Core

See for yourselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/197.83.246.23 PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

These edits absolutely need to be reverted and the external links restored. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Two Australian "Whovians" appearing at the exact same time, saying the same thing, and agreeing with each other. Occam's Razor applies here. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

False accusations can and will be taken seriously. It's not our fault that nobody agrees with your edits; maybe you need to take a hint. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ratings graph for season articles

I'd like to hear thoughts on using {{Television ratings graph}} in the season articles, such as this one for season 1:

Viewers per episode (millions)

Serial		Episode number							Average
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7
	An Unearthly Child	4.4	5.9	6.9	6.3	–			5.9
	The Daleks	6.9	6.4	8.9	9.9	9.9	10.4	10.4	9.0
	The Edge of Destruction	10.4	9.9	–					10.2
	Marco Polo	9.4	9.4	9.4	9.9	9.4	8.4	10.4	9.5
	The Keys of Marinus	9.9	9.4	9.9	10.4	7.9	6.9	–	9.1
	The Aztecs	7.4	7.4	7.9	7.4	–			7.5
	The Sensorites	7.9	6.9	7.4	5.5	6.9	6.9	–	6.9
	The Reign of Terror	6.9	6.9	6.9	6.4	6.9	6.4	–	6.7

Audience measurement performed by Broadcasters' Audience Research Board

I understand that this template is primarily used for television show articles (like Game of Thrones or Parks and Recreation) but the number of episodes in the early seasons of Doctor Who makes it a perfect fit. It's an incredibly helpful visual guide that allows the reader to understand the viewership trajectory across the season, which is difficult and complicated to describe through text. What do you think? – Rhain ☔ 01:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd support the usage of them in season articles, sure. I think that the graph alone is all that's needed, we don't need the table as it makes it too cluttered and all of that data is already available in the episode tables. Would it just be for the classic seasons, or all of them? What's the decision making process for the colours, or are they arbitrary? -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Limiting to the graph alone is fair enough, I think. I definitely think they'd work best for classic seasons, particularly the first 21 seasons (and especially the first six), though I think a graph is always helpful even when there's only 13–14 episodes (such as season 22 onward). The colours are sourced from the DVD (or soundtrack) releases of the serials. – Rhain ☔ 02:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, if we're going to include them for some of the classic era, we might as well do the whole classic era. DVD/Soundtrack releases are good enough, just wanted to make sure they weren't random. All looks good to me. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Specials in episode tables and corresponding home media releases

We add the special episodes to the already-established episode tables in separate series articles to simplify episode listings, especially at List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present). Traditionally, we have based these inclusions on how these specials are included in the separate series home media boxsets. This can be seen with:

• Series 2: includes "The Christmas Invasion"
• Series 3: includes "The Runaway Bride"
• Series 4: includes "Voyage of the Damned"
• Series 6: includes "A Christmas Carol"
• Series 7: includes "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" and "The Snowmen"
• Series 9: includes "Last Christmas" and "The Husbands of River Song"
• Series 10: includes "The Return of Doctor Mysterio"

There's been discussions and arguments on this in the past, as this "tradition" may not conform with a "common sense" point of view. For example... "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" could be considered a conclusion to Series 6 rather than an opening to Series 7, based on its release date. Same with "Last Christmas" and Series 8, rather than Series 9, based on its release date and episode events. However, we can also note that "Twice Upon a Time" was never included in a series boxset, but is included with the Series 10 table; an obvious "common sense" choice, given that it's a Twelfth Doctor episode, leads directly on from "The Doctor Falls", and would make no sense to include it in Series 11's table. So far, "Twice Upon a Time" remains the only entry based on a "common sense" inclusion.

This now brings me to the reason for this discussion: when it comes to "Resolution", where should we include it? The "common sense" point of view says Series 11, given that it aired a month after the series and is a natural conclusion to the series, but the "traditional" point of view says Series 12, given that it will be included in the respective boxset. Thoughts? -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Any thoughts? If not, then I will proceed with the "tradition" route and move "Resolution" to the Series 12 table. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that the natural continuation of this discussion would be where to include "Revolution of the Daleks". Now, "tradition" would say Series 13, as it won't be in the Series 12 boxset but more likely the Series 13 boxset, but Series 13 does not have a live article yet, so we would need to keep it in the Series 12 table. That is, until Series 13 starts filming in September and would thus then have a live article, and then we would move the special from the Series 12 article to the Series 13 article. But "common sense" would say Series 12, as it was filmed with Series 12's production blocks and will continue on from "The Timeless Children". -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to add to the problems, streaming services are listing things a bit differently. On Netflix:

• Series 2: includes "The Christmas Invasion"
• Series 3: includes "The Runaway Bride"
• Series 4: includes "Voyage of the Damned" and also The Next Doctor, Planet of the Dead, The Waters of Mars and The End of Time.
• Series 5 includes "A Christmas Carol"
• Series 6 includes "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe"
• Series 7 includes The Snowmen, The Day of the Doctor and the Time of the Doctor (but no the Night of the Doctor anywhere)
• Series 9: includes "Last Christmas" and "The Husbands of River Song"
• Series 10: includes "The Return of Doctor Mysterio" and "Twice Upon a Time"

...and the Whittaker years aren't yet up.

BBC iPlayer generally doesn't assign the specials to a series apart from The Snowmen in the middle Series 7. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Tradition has typically been to look at home media, as these releases are determined by the BBC themselves, whereas Netflix does their own thing. But yeah, it's definitely something to keep in mind. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the soundtrack releases from Silva Screen, they group as follows:

• Original Television Soundtrack (Series 1&2): includes music from "The Christmas Invasion" & "The Runaway Bride"
• Series 3: includes music from "The Runaway Bride"
• Series 4: includes music from "Voyage of the Damned"
• Series 4 - The Specials: includes music from "The Next Doctor", "Planet of the Dead", "The Waters of Mars" and The End of Time.
• Series 5: no music from specials as "A Christmas Carol" was a separate release
• Series 6: no music from specials as "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" & "The Snowmen" were on a separate release
• Series 7: no music from specials as "The Day of the Doctor" and "The Time of the Doctor" were on a separate release
• Series 8: includes music from "Last Christmas"
• Series 9: includes music from "The Husbands of River Song"
• Series 11: includes music from "Resolution"
• Series 12: no music from specials

This probably doesn't give a lot of insight though Etron81 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging U-Mos. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, this doesn't seem to have reached any clear agreement but happy to discuss per WP:BRD process. As noted above, there's a logic to including specials with the series that precede them, most significantly the production period and closer broadcast dates. Particularly now details for series 13 are being announced with information around the COVID impact on filming, we have a lot of information aligning "Revolution of the Daleks" with the series 12 production [3] and distinct from series 13's filming [4]. While there's been deviations in the past, it's a uniform arrangement under Chibnall so far - specials follow the full series. Worth bearing in mind that the series pages list production blocks and detail filming periods as well - these specials fit far more naturally into the series that preceded them in these sections. I'd say that is enough to be prioritised over DVD releases, which a) do not include specials in every region and b) don't explicitly place specials within a series where are included, i.e. "Doctor Who: The Complete Twelfth Series, also includes Doctor Who Resolution special" [5]. U-Mos (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a logic to using production blocks, I agree, and the specials were included with their production blocks for the past two series for quite a while. I can absolutely see how it makes sense. However, we've also gone by the tradition of home media inclusions for years (i.e. before I started this discussion, this was already the consensus); the most controversial being with "Last Christmas" and Series 8, rather than Series 9. Regions don't matter here, as the programme is a British series, so we only need to look at British home media releases (i.e. an Australian or American home media release does not affect the programme). Concerning the "includes" part, that's because no special has ever been part of a series (even "The Snowmen, that isn't part of Series 7), they are always separate productions. We simply list them together for convenience, instead of having a mass of separate tables at the LoE article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

While I respect the convention that's been applied to date, I do think there comes a point where what was logical a decade ago may no longer be the best protocol. The Chibnall/Whittaker era is a clear place to begin allocating in a different way if it makes more sense to, without disrupting earlier series pages. And there's always the capacity for exceptions to using home media - per above, we're only really talking DVD releases as streaming services do what they feel like and digital stores don't allocate specials to a series at all, not to mention "Twice Upon a Time" which never featured in a DVD set. Not suggesting that's changed, of course, but it demonstrates that home media releases aren't the only guideline. Let's see what others think. U-Mos (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

That does make sense. Different showrunner, so a different manner of production and specials placement. If there's a consensus to change the format for the Thirteenth Doctor era, I'm happy to work with it. ("The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" and "Last Christmas" could also be discussed, as to whether we should keep them there or move them, as they're the most controversial inclusions of the ones I detailed in my first post, or we could just keep them as is.) I would still recommend that in the home media release tables that the specials stay with the series they're included with (i.e. as they're listed now, with Resolution under the Series 12 column), but they could be included in multiple series articles (i.e. S11 for where it'll have aired, but S12 as well under its home media release). -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, no objection to keeping home media releases as they are. Happy to go ahead if there are no further comments in the next few days? U-Mos (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing, I see no issue. I'm not sure how many editors watch this talk page, so would you object if I pinged editors who have contributed to this talk page recently? -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Go for it, happy to get more input. U-Mos (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Andrybak, Aresef, DonQuixote, Etron81, MarnetteD, Masem, Narky Blert, OceanHok, PamD, PAustin4thApril1980, Redrose64, Rhain, Spa-Franks, Sprite96, Timrollpickering, Trystan, and WordwizardW: Pinging editors that have contributed to this talk page this year. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Probably should consider the weight of things. That is, production blocks before home media releases before common sense. There might be a few other things to consider in that chain depending on the context. DonQuixote (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Did I post on this page? You don't need my WP:3O, this looks like a model discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm lost at this point. It would be helpful if there were a way to refer to the comment I was pinged for. However, I think specials should be grouped with the seaason they were produced with and shown with. Boxed sets are irrelevant to those of us who don't buy/have any. If there's a real ambiguity, why not list it both ways? WordwizardW (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Weren't all the box sets re-released fairly recently (about 2015 from memory), so which "box set" are you referring to in the examples given? I've got the original editions for Series 1-4, whereby the special is grouped with the following series. Christmas Invasion may feel like S1, but it's grouped with New Earth on a standalone release and it's in the 2006 S2 boxset. Things get a bit muddy for the Moffat/Smith era, as that's when I stopped buying them. The Tennant specials have their own page for the "box set" reason. But I have no idea where Christmas Carol onwards are in the box sets. The BBC's Doctor Who website doesn't group them with anything at all. The iPlayer has bizarrely U-turned from the box sets: on the iPlayer - which effectively is the official version, one would guess - they're all grouped with the preceding series, so that Episode 1 of each series is New Earth, Smith and Jones, etc. (the only exception being The Snowmen, which is labelled as Series 7 Episode 6). The iPlayer goes on to put Last Christmas in S8 (fair enough given its subplot surrounding Danny), Husbands in S9 (fair enough), but then Mysterio is also given in S9, which is odd given its inclusion of Nardole. Twice Upon is in S10 (as per consensus), Resolution in S11. Revolution of the Daleks, however, I suspect will go in S13 considering the closeness in airdates. Spa-Franks (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I realise that doesn't answer your question, so based solely on my common sense and Doctor Who fandom (and I'm sure you can find a source for what I'm about to suggest), I would put Xmas Invasion - Voyage in the following series (i.e. 2-4, not 1-3), Christmas Carol and Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe (or whatever it's called) in 6, Snowmen in 7 (obviously), Last Christmas in 8, Husbands in 9, Doctor Mysterio and Twice Upon in 10, then Resolution in 11. Spa-Franks (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, so regarding the proposal to move the specials from the Whittaker/Chibnall era to the series with which they were produced with - except on the list of home media releases - it looks like we're good to go. I'll enact those changes in the next few days if no one beat me to it. U-Mos (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

DVD Documentaries

I have no idea whether these are considered reliable or not, but I can't imagine why they wouldn't be. That said, I have added in a fact from the DVD documentary for Time and the Rani but have given it a very basic Harvard-style citation as I cannot find any wiki markup for citing DVD releases and documentaries. Spa-Franks (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Cite AV media DonQuixote (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Spa-Franks: For a specific example, check out The Rescue. – Rhain ☔ 23:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Doctor Who

I've removed {{Doctor Who}} from a number of articles, per WP:BIDI; the edited articles were all related to Doctor Who but they were not included in navbox, and thus should not include the navbox. Obviously, they'll all already have their other Doctor Who-related navboxes, most of which should link Doctor Who in their header, so no issues should arise. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Doctor Who episode

In {{Infobox Doctor Who episode}}, why are the Doctors and Companions listed as "Jodie Whittaker (Thirteenth Doctor)" and "Bradley Walsh (Graham O'Brien)" (i.e. the character bracketed), whereas the guest cast are listed as "Chris Noth – Robertson" (i.e. dashed)? There should be conformity between them, and it should be the dashed format. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If there's no response, I'll go through with AWB and update the infoboxes to a conformed format with dashes. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The current situation may stem back to when cast lists were moved from the body of the article into the info box. That was a loooong time ago now. I too prefer the dash over the parenthesis. MarnetteD|Talk 23:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Fugitive Doctor

Thoughts on the Fugitive Doctor existing as an article? -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Fine. It's referenced and justifies its notability. Lots more critical point of view needed, but that's a note for improvement rather than removal. U-Mos (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:DW" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:DW. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11#Wikipedia:DW until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Deriving an episode/serial number

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Template talk:Infobox Doctor Who episode#Deriving an episode/serial number. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Doctor Who missing episodes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)