Talk:Doctor Who series 11

Draft articles

Draft notice for "Demons of the Punjab" episode

This is just a notice that there is a draft for "Demons of the Punjab" at Draft:Demons of the Punjab 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. Matt14451 (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft notice for "Kerblam!" episode

This is just a notice that there is a draft for "Kerblam!" at Draft:Kerblam! 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^TW 00:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft notice for "The Witchfinders" episode

This is just a notice that there is a draft for "The Witchfinders" at Draft:The Witchfinders 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^TW 00:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Filming Blocks

A year ago it was announced that the first filming block was directed by Jamie Childs and would be comprised of Episode 1 and Episode 7. It would seem that the original Episode 7 has been swapped with the original episode 6. So "Demons of the Punjab" was the original Episode 7, but is now the episode 6. "Demons of the Punjab" was therefore in the first filming block since it was directed by Jamie Childs. So "Episode 7" and "Demons of the Punjab" need swapping round. Yes, this is original research hence why I'm putting it on the talk page, but the current filming table is inaccurate as it says Childs directed part of block 3, when this is equally unsourced. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

episode 9

they've announced that episode 9 of series 11 is called the witch finders by joy Wilkinson. Could you please add that. On the fandom wiki for series 11, it states the episode there. 79.69.219.69 (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a reliable source. Do you have a link? Closeclouds (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Wikia's are not a reliable source, as they, just like Wikipedia or IMDb, are user-generated. -- Alex^TW 13:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Close the page for not confirmed accounts

The page is constantly getting vandalized GFruet (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

We know, it's already been requested. -- Alex^TW 01:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Alex! It's so sad that some people enjoy to do this. GFruet (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

RegentsPark protected the page until January 22, 2019, so until a couple of weeks after the entire series (and special) concludes. -- Alex^TW 01:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

though it looks like they have stopped, I've teporarily protected series 10 as well --regentspark (comment) 02:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Script Editor

The role of 'Script Editor' seems to have been reinstated for each episode, but there are also credits for 'Script Supervisor' and 'Assistant Script Supervisor'. However, Sheena Bucktowonsing is credited on each episode broadcast to date as 'Series Script Editor' which suggests she is overseeing the script editing role for the entire season. Is this worthy of notation in the production section of this article? I believe it's the first time such an oversight role has been credited.173.167.111.149 (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2018

9 million viewers for The Ghost Monument according to BARB. 212.113.197.18 (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Wait until it's included in the given header source. -- Alex^TW 13:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ratings template

Recently, I have made use of {{Television episode ratings/consolidated}} to sum up all of the separate ratings information on this page, as it is all series-specific and spread across multiple articles. Bar the four-screen data, no information here is new, all is already included in the episode articles and this very same article, and reflects the thousands of articles using {{Television episode ratings}}. Are there any guideline-based or policy-based disagreements for the use of this template? -- Alex^TW 08:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The consolidated ratings are also new and not in the specific episode articles. Each of the four-screen ratings aren't of interest to the average reader. Matt14451 (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Consolidated ratings are the weekly ratings released a week after the episode's aired. They're in the articles, 10.96 and 9.00. Read again. So, you don't agree with the four-screen ratings. So: Are there any guideline-based or policy-based disagreements for the use of this template? -- Alex^TW 09:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

When I said consolidated ratings I meant the column labelled consolidated ratings, e.g. 1.892 for The Ghost Monument which is not in that article. I don't disagree with those figures being in the articles. There doesn't need to be guideline-based or policy-based disagreements, you don't have any either and you're the one trying to get a consensus. Can throw WP:TRIVIA in there if you really want. Matt14451 (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Those are acceptable per WP:CALC, a policy. There does when you have that level of opposition to it, else it's nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have the backing of thousands of articles that use identical templates to display identical content. It's certainly not trivia, as overnight and consolidated ratings are discussed heavily when it comes to British series, especially Doctor Who, which is why so many articles mention whether they were the highest or lowest in the programme's history for each episode, as well as the AI, which is also used pretty heavily in regards to the popularity of an episode (and how "Journey's End" has the highest, for example). -- Alex^TW 10:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

What articles use "identical templates"? Give examples. Other DW articles don't have these. Just because other articles does something doesn't mean its right here. The four-screen data information is definitely trivia which is only relevant when looking at how an individual episode performs on different platforms. The individual episodes should have more in-depth ratings information so if you say consolidated ratings are only relevant in exceptional circumstances why should they all be included here. The responsibility is yours to provide policies to support the change. Stop splitting discussions across multiple talk pages. Matt14451 (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

All the articles that uses the templates. View the template then click "What links here". All the thousands of articles that use all the US version, they're different versions of the same template. There is widespread consensus to use the template. If you disagree with the use of consolidated ratings, why are they in the episode table? In the episode articles? Series 11 has had the highest ratings in years, that's series specific information. No policy required, do you say that to EVERYONE who edits ANY page? No? If we remove the trivia, there's been no reason given by you for not having it anymore other than IDONTLIKEIT. No splitting, this discussion is about the table, the other us about you and me. -- Alex^TW 11:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The consolidated figures aren't in the episode table, I have already given you an example of the consolidated figures. You are adding BOLD content to an article so its your responsibility to gain consensus, not my job to give policies, etc to oppose you. Only a discussion about the content is necessary. Matt14451 (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they are. What's in that column is the difference between overnight and consolidated, and that is allowable by CALC. And yes, it is your job when you're the one disagreeing with it. You have no longer have any justifiable reason for deleting it. You haven't responded to of my responses to your disagreements. Should I dot point them instead? Else, there is no point in deleting it. -- Alex^TW 12:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

As I have already said, the consolidated figure for The Ghost Monument is 1.892, that is not listed in the episode table so stop claiming it is. The episode table lists the total viewers, that's different. I responded before deleting the discussion on my talk page, it wasn't appropriate for that location and you were ignoring what I was saying again. Where is a similar table included in a UK series? The figures used in the US versions are different. It's your job to get consensus for your edits when they are opposed. Matt14451 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've reverted, The Walking Dead (season 7)#Ratings, Friends (season_2)#Ratings and Game of Thrones (season 7)#Ratings are just a few examples of ratings being used for each series, Whilst Alex was indeed bold I'm not seeing any valid reason to remove other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, By all means start an RFC but as it stands Alex's edit was uncontroversial and like I said there was no valid reason to remove/revert. –Davey2010^Talk 12:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Alex is free to start a RfC since they are his edits so it's his job to defend them. Those examples are US and include different information, less figures. How is the four-screen data relevant. The edits were definitely uncontroversial. Matt14451 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

No RFC needed. No other opposition has been voiced. I'm glad you think they were uncontroversial. Without controversy. -- Alex^TW 12:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You're free to start a RfC or not. That was a spelling mistake, your edits were controversial, don't have time to spellcheck for timewaster. You don't have consensus. Matt14451 (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Behaviour-related comments not related to the topic at hand.

Nor do you own the page. See WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, points 3 and 4. Especially 4. You need to provide policies and the like to explain your revert. -- AlexTW 12:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC) When did I say I own the page? That isn't in the case of a bold edit. Matt14451 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC) See OWNBEHAVIOR as I said. -- AlexTW 12:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC) As I said that doesn't refer to bold edits. I gave policies above anyway. Matt14451 (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC) It doesn't say that anywhere in OWN. At all. Nowhere in OWN does it allow OWN based on BOLD edits, that's made up. You no longer have the consensus. Thanks. -- AlexTW 13:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC) You have no excuse for reverting my revert. It doesn't mention BOLD edits like I said. P.S. You can't ban me from your talk page, if I want to post there then I will. Improve your attitude. Matt14451 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC) @Matt14451:Er, yes Alex can ban you from his talk page, or at least remove all of your comments (so basically banning you) per WP:OWNTALK where it says users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. And how the hell can you say Improve you attitude where it's you whose accused Alex of vandalism completely wrongly? TedEdwards 14:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC) Er, there's a difference between removing comments and banning. I kept removing his comments yet he thought it appropriate to just keep adding them back, double-standard again. He added his BOLD content after I removed it, that is grounds for a warning. Matt14451 (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC) Please take behaviour-related comments to the appropriate venue; this talk page is for content-related comments. Thank you. -- AlexTW 14:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC) What is the "appropriate venue" then? I can think of many examples where you haven't followed that advice like in our other conversations. "Thank you". Matt14451 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Alex for this edit. I have however reduced the number of decimal places from 3 to 2 for the consolidated viewership, because you can't justify them to 3 d.p. as the overnight viewership is only given to 2 d.p. TedEdwards 13:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

No problems, glad to help. And you're quite right, I didn't think of that. Thanks! -- Alex^TW 13:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Four screen

Now that there's editors to have a civil discussion with, what's everyone's thoughts on the four-screen data? It's brand new, and if it didn't exist, the consolidated viewers would likely be listed at 10.56 million TV viewers, but now that we have them, they've increased the viewers significantly. Too much detail or fine as is? -- Alex^TW 13:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - So now you want to have a content discussion? Matt14451 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as the consensus is to keep it, and there are editors here who actually wish to have a civil discussion about the table. And "opposing" for no reason, this isn't an RFC. -- Alex^TW 13:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I like it, it's different. I think such forward thinking ideas should be embraced on Wikipedia. If there was something similar for American television shows I would support that too. Esuka323 (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support - If we've got the info from reliable sources, why not include it? And I agree with Esuka's comment, we should being including forward thinking ideas. These are great for Wikipedia's growth. TedEdwards 14:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support I don't see a problem with the layout and I think the breakdown of different viewing devices will be of interest.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

If you're going to include the 96% Rotten Tomatoes rating from official reviewers, you should probably also include the audience score (currently 53%). Including one without the other is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.15.91 (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, short answer, no. The 96% is from many different critics, of which there not many of, and the general consensus across Wikipedia is that this is a number we can quote. The 53%, however, is generated from a small number of fans, and does not represent the widespread view of fans, it's only ones who bother to give it a rating. Think about it, 986 out of over 8 million viewers. So the audience score is pretty dubious. It's also not misleading, we're only saying the critics like it, we make no mention of the fans. TedEdwards 17:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018

Change the Christmas special date to TBD.

There's no announcement from the BBC (not even officially that there is a special). I don't see how The Express as a single source is reliable on this (in the same way that the Mirror isn't reliable for it being on New Year's Day). It's essentially speculation at this point to assume anything about the date, which seems to go against any number of Wikipedia policies. Just leave it at TBD until the BBC confirm, that leaves out the possibility of anyone being misled in the meantime and is more in keeping with an encyclopedia. 2.24.17.179 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done The source states 25 December and thus can be used as it conforms with WP:V and WP:RS, neither of which have guidelines concerning one person's personal view. Furthermore, The Express is a reliable sources, whereas The Mirror is a tabloid that focuses a great deal of their work on speculation and rumours. -- Alex^TW 23:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done (pinging AlexTheWhovian) If I had noticed it was the Express, I would have removed it earlier, so thank you 2.24.17.179 for bringing this up. Yeah, Alex, the Express is just another unreliable tabloid, (it's one of those tabloids that puts random words in capitals in the header). See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources. TedEdwards 23:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

TedEdwards, opposing an already answered edit request is in extremely bad faith; a discussion should have ensured before any other action was taken. Your personal opinion is noted. -- Alex^TW 23:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)