Talk:List of Doctor Who home video releases

Dalek War release date

The release date attributed to the Dalek War set of 28/12/09 is a rumour spread by Zeta Minor, not one official source has stated this as the release date and even Steve Roberts of the restoration team has hinted an october release. I think it would be better if in future the release dates are kept to "TBA" until an announcement by an official enough source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.182.123 (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point - the release date of Dalek War changed a few times, and last year there was a load of juggling of Trial of a Time Lord and The War Machines (so much so that the War Machines trailer never got a DVD release), so adding in dates based on rumour is premature and should be avoided. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing Episodes

As no attempt has been made to release any kind of reconstruction of The Reign of Terror, The Tenth Planet or The Ice Warriors on DVD, and this list is regarding DVD releases, does the information relating to these stories actually belong on this page? Especially given that each has its own subheading - Robsinden (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay - going to remove as not relevant to this page. Robsinden (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Some were released on a DVD called Lost in time, but i don't know if this included those above. 194.72.80.15 (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who movie

What is the situation with the Region 4 release of the movie? The note provided mentions the complicated issues between the Beeb, Fox, and Universal and says this is the problem with the release for Region 1, but this note is also given for Region 4 and no mention is made in the note regarding Region 4. Should the note be changed or should the release date information be changed? Lost on Belmont (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just tried to see when this note was added. About 6 weeks ago by an unregistered user. Fairly sure that the note should only apply to Region 1 release. Will revert region 4 to n/a unless someone has better information. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Curse of Peladon/Monster of Peladon

This box set has been announced for release in January by Dan Hall (2/Entertain) at the Time and Again DWAS event. It will replace the planned Planet of Fire/King's Demons box set that was originally scheduled for this slot (and whose coming soon trailer is on the Dalek War DVDs). This has been confirmed by Steve Roberts on the GB forum. Dan Hall also confirmed The Time Monster for 2010 and a "Re-visitation" box set, which will contain some of the early DVD releases with new special features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.62.181 (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Timings

All timings for the DVDs are given as 4x25 mins etc. Wouldn't it be better to give precise timings as given on the packaging (102 mins, 99 mins instead). It could say "99 minutes (4 episodes)" perhaps. This would be more accurate with, especially, The Mind Robber, which runs about twenty minutes short. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This idea has some merit. The 4x, 6x etc has always been an anachronism since the episodes rarely match 25 or 45 minutes lengths mentioned. I would cast my vote for altering this page to match Totnesmartins suggestion. MarnetteD | Talk 22:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me too! Etron81 (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm happy with that - seeing as the article is about the DVDs rather than the TV broadcast. I think it might see some opposition for the new series though. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think sometimes it's better to be approximate for clarity, rather than 100% correct... In this case I think it's easier for the reader to comprehend "7x25 mins" than "175 mins (7 episodes)" or "325 mins (13 episodes)". We know that the episodes are all 25 mins long, (except for the ones that aren't ;)), but not everyone does and it's something extra for the reader to work out if we change it. Miremare 13:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How about having both? e.g. 96 mins (4 x 25 min approx). or something like? Rob Sinden (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your input. I don't think that both is the way to go as it only adds clutter to the page and will drive the O/C math readers bonkers since they won't add up to the same number :D. I would add that this page is about the DVD releases and giving the total running time does correspond to the info that is on the DVD covers. While there is some merit to what you say Miremare, unfortunately, none of the episodes are exactly 25 minutes long ;(. It should be noted that the exact episode run times are available in the wiki article about each story. Does anyone want to expand this discussion to the project talk page to get more feedback? Cheers to all. MarnetteD | Talk 16:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

None of the episodes are exactly 25 mins, but that's what I mean when I say I think it's better to be approximate (noted if necessary) than exactly accurate. I think it's more useful for a reader to simply read how long the episodes are (approx 25 mins or 45 mins or whatever) than have to work it out in their heads, especially if, as you say, we'd be using figures such as the 98 mins quoted on the back of the recent Black Guardian DVDs, which doesn't work out as a round figure when divided, and is itself an approximate figure according to the box anyway. I take your point about the list being about the DVDs rather than the programmes themselves, though I think that the fact that they are still presented in their original episodic format should be kept in mind. I just think we would be obfuscating things for no gain with such a change. Miremare 20:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I do apologize if I caused offense Miremare I was trying to respond to the fun winking smile in your edit with a sad sack look at the fans (myself included) obsession with this wonderful show. Again my apologies and happy editing. 20:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no offence caused or taken! I was just attempting to clarify my stance that's all, sorry if it came over the wrong way. :) Miremare 21:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Mind of Evil

Is there a source for this? It's been going round the rumour mill but there's nothing definite online. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Kamelion Stories

First off let me say that these stories may still be released this year but here is the problem with having them in the table right now.

1. The source used is the coming attraction trailer that came with the stories in the Dalek War boxed set. Nowhere in this trailer is a date stated.
2. The box set for these two stories was available for preorder at Amazon UK in mid-December. It has since been removed. This leads me to believe that there is some problem with getting the rights to these two stories cleared. I know that I don't have any source for this but something is up. I hope that the problem does not lie in any squabbles over the estate of the man who created the robot.
3. The reason that, until we have a confirmed release date, that I would be leery of putting them back in lies in the following cautionary tale. Back in the early 2000's there were at least two or three years that Tim Burton's film Ed Wood, Jr. was announced for a Halloween release. Halloween would pass and it still wasn't available in stores. It kept getting pulled for various reasons. Until we know why these two stories are being put off it would be inaccurate to list them in this article.

If any of you have resources that can clear this up please feel free to note them here or use them as a reference when you put these titles back on the main page. thanks, in advance for anything that you can add. MarnetteD | Talk 20:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have just found that they have been put back on Amazon UK with a release date of June 7th. Whew. I'll try putting them back in but if I mess it up anyone else who can work with these tables please feel free to update. MarnetteD | Talk 15:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Pending releases

Until recently, the page mentioned the number of stories which had not been released for each Doctor. However, this was removed by one editor, and I'm wondering if there is any good reason why this information shouldn't remain on the page. As far as I can see, there's no reason not to include it, as it is easily verifiable. Comments anyone? Rob Sinden (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

First, this page is for DVDs being released not those that will be released some unknown day - month - year in the future. Next, their listing violates WP:OR, unless you can find a reliable source that takes the time to list these.

The reliability of the info is suspect. Saying that "XXX" are the remaining stories to be released leaves questions including: should Shada be listed. It would seem likely that it would be released with the Tom Baker links as it was on VHS. My own hope is that a DVD of it would include the the Big Finish production. But until we know anything this is speculation. How do we decide what should be listed for Hartnell and Troughton. What if they decide to do more animations a la The Invasion (unlikely I admit.) They might also chose to release the telesnaps combined with the audio of the missing stories.

The remaining stories will wind up here when a release date is set and I feel that we already have several pages where all of the stories are listed. Of course, this is all just one editors opinion. Other thoughts are invited and thank you for starting this thread Rob Sinden (any relation to Donald, Jeremy or Marc?)

One last thought - if the consensus is reached to put them in we might as well put them in the table with TBA next to them. A separate section(s) leaves them likely to be double listed at some point. Cheers to all.MarnetteD | Talk 04:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No relation as far as I'm aware! I'm not suggesting that each story be listed individually, and certainly don't think they should be included in the table for now, but to say that XX number of stories by this doctor have not been released on DVD isn't saying that they definitely will be released, it is just an additional bit of information that someone may find useful. All it states is what has not been released. The longstanding wording that was showing before underneath each doctor's story:

"There are x remaining intact serials featuring the Xth Doctor not yet announced for release on DVD, and x incomplete serials which have not had their extant material released on DVD"

seemed suitable, factual, concise and verifiable enough to avoid being speculation. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Creature from the Pit

Someone keeps adding Creature from the pit based on the BBFC having cleared the programme for release. This isn't a valid source, as all it does is confirm that it has been okayed by the BBFC and it is no way a guarantee that the release is imminent. Although it probably is, I'm sure that before we haven't accepted this as a valid source. Anyone agree / disagree? Rob Sinden (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't add stuff until there's a confirmed date, normally. The BBFC don't concern themselves with release dates. For all we know, Creature from the Pit might not even come out this year. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Grouping of Boxsets in the tables

Is there any rationale for grouping certain consecutive boxsets in the tables, but not others? For example, The Beginning Boxset is not grouped, but The E-Space Trilogy is. Personally, I'd prefer if none were grouped, but think we should have consistency. I think I'd even prefer the Lost in Time episodes to be split, but maybe that's a discussion for another day. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The E-Space Trilogy is grouped as it was a single story arc; so were The Black Guardian Trilogy, The Key to Time and The Trial of a Time Lord. No other boxset releases have this property - The Beginning is three separate stories which have been released together for marketing reasons only. Lost in Time is different as they aren't complete stories. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

But The E-Space Trilogy and The Black Guardian Trilogy are only nominal story arcs, and not any more valid as an arc as, say, the stories on the New Beginnings box set. Admittedly, I agree with you on the other two. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

New Beginnings is something of a special case: a story arc which contains adventures on either side of a regeneration. If all of its stories had the same doctor in they would have been grouped too, but it's more important to arrange them by which doctor appears in them. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Therefore for consistency's sake should we not eschew the current idea of grouping by boxset only if they form part of a arbitrary narrative "arc", and simply list by serial name (as per table header anyway). I can see that a special case *could* be made for The Key to Time and The Trial of a Time Lord, but as long as all box sets are mentioned in the footnotes, don't see why we should treat some box sets differently to others. An argument could be made that the Dalek War boxset would constitute an "arc". Sometime's it's just a matter of opinion. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The BBC's classic series page has the E-space trilogy and the Black Guardian trilogy as story arcs. [1][2] Given that it is a matter of opinion in these cases, I think we should take the BBC's opinion as the predominant one which we should use here. Dalek War is a strange one in that it is in effect a story arc, but the BBC don't appear to link them. [3] Alzarian16 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I take your point about following the BBC's lead on this. However (although it's been a while since I went to the official site) I'm fairly sure that this has been added since the release of the Boxsets! Rob Sinden (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not convinced about that. Even if they were, I think this and this (which are where the story arc headings link to) are fairly conclusive proof that the BBC and the article largely agree with each other. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the article is about DVD releases rather than broadcast episodes, we should say when a story is part of a box set, as that's how it was released. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed someone has edited the The Key to Time boxset information to individual serials. I've never edited before and don't know if I'd be allowed nor if I'd stuff it up. So can someone please undo it and put it back the other way? I'll admit it's much better looking and more informative when they are listed as a group. Also why have rinse-and-repeat dates posted again and again when once is enough? Lastly The Armageddon Factor has 6 episodes. I hope it will be fixed because it also tells the general person what to look for when buying it as well as looking good (I hope I didn't stuff this up). -Angeloz 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.138.148 (talk)

I've reverted your edits in view of the discussion above. Think we need more of a consensus if we are to change. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're quite right about the Armageddon Factor - I've fixed it. The decision whether to split/group is a matter of opinion. Some Region 2 box sets are sold as individual stories in other markets, for example Beneath the Surface. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If we are reopening the discussion about whether to split the boxes into their indivudual stories, I think I'm in favour of the whole idea, and would even go so far as to think the discussion should also maybe include the Lost in Time set, and the reconstruction of "Marco Polo" on The Beginning. We shouldn't make the changes before it is discussed properly though. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting. As I've mentioned I'm not sure about editing (and even if I could I'm afraid I'd mess it up somehow) but there are two dates that are the wrong way around with Revenge of the Cybermen and Silver Nemesis under Region 4 being October 7 instead of 7 October. As for the topic I hope you mostly retain the boxset information for the general punter that doesn't know about the arcs. Nor what the boxsets are called. I think it useful because it lists both separate story titles and what they could buy it under eg. The Key to Time. I don't mind if the ones with different Doctors either have a footnote or it in brackets (except Lost in Time please retain that). As mentioned I think it looks better and is easier to see useful information at once. Instead of thinking they are just separate stories (if I didn't know about Doctor Who). On The Beginning I'd like it if you had that information too. I just don't see how having useful information is considered a bad thing. I hope I'm not butting in where I'm not wanted as it's only the second time I've been here.

-Angeloz 16:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.138.148 (talk)

The table for the 11th Dr

I noticed that the table for the 11th Doctor's DVD's has been added. Lost on belmont has done some fixes on it per my request in an edit summary - and my thanks for this. I noticed that the table does not have a bottom line. I am not at all versed in setting these up, but, when I compare this table to the previous ones I find that the set up instructions are different from the 9th and 10th Dr tables. If anyone can fix this new table so that it matches the others it would be much appreciated. Thanks ahead of time. MarnetteD | Talk 18:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well now it had been removed which may be correct, but, I would say Amazon has always been reliable for new releases. Their info comes directly from the manufacturer and if the release date changes (which happens from time to time) they update that info faster then any other website. I do not see any previous discussions (though I may be missing it) where there is a consensus that we can't use their info. Many of our references use them and the Gallifrey newsbase that we also use seems to rely on Amazon UK for the dates the use in their articles. MarnetteD | Talk 18:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Took me a while to see what the main problem was, but I got it. I also agree that we should leave the release date info from Amazon as it is since they're the ones selling it. Lost on Belmont (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)There's no problem with Amazon release dates as far as I can see on WP:RS. That page says not to use promotional websites, that that's to stop articles turning into puff-pieces - and this one isn't. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this discussion when I removed the section. While I don't have a problem with citing Amazon for release dates of confirmed releases, as we often do, no eleventh Doctor DVDs have been confirmed by the BBC or 2 entertain. Amazon list things as soon as they think they can get away with it because they want people to pre-order, but that doesn't mean they aren't simply speculating. It wouldn't be the first time. Elite 4 has been listed and de-listed more than once by Amazon and at least once by play.com in the last few years and it's still not out... I don't think there's any need to hurry to add this particular DVD, let's just wait until an official announcement as we usually do. Miremare 20:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Miremare - the cite doesn't confirm its release - it merely says "Amazon have listed the first DVD release for the Eleventh Doctor". It seems that they are sceptical. I think the table shouldn't be here (for now) until an official announcement is made. Rob Sinden (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Would the BBC Shop be a better source? Etron81 (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the 2nd link Etron81. As you will note the date of June 7th matches so Amazon has it correct. Be aware that Amazon has two different ways of listing future releases. The have sign up for notifications for items that do not have confirmed release date. Then they have pre orders for items that have been given a release date by the manufacturer. The problem that you are having with Elite 4 is due to the manufacturer not Amazon. Everything that Amazon gets is from the manufacturer so they do not make up dates just to lure a buyer in and they do not collect money until they ship the item. Thus they are still a reliable source for wikipedia purposes. MarnetteD | Talk 22:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge Elite 4 has never been given a release date by its publishers, unless it was one they only told Amazon and then changed their minds about, but that seems unlikely given that it has never been anywhere near complete since it was first announced in the 90s. Ultimately Amazon are just a retailer and we shouldn't be relying on them for anthing more than dates of already confirmed releases, as not only have they proven unreliable in the past, but if a release is "official" there will be other better sources to use, such as the BBC one found by Etron81. Miremare 00:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there some part of "Amazon gets there release dates from the manufacturers" that you are missing. In this case they got therre release date from the BBC and listed in the same way that the BBC Shop (another source that is just a retailer by the way) did. They cannot make up a release date and then go to the copyright holders and say release a DVD. Could you please provide proof that they have been unreliable in the past. I have been ordering from them for over a decade and have not found this to be the case. Also be aware that they have been accepted as a reliable source on this page for quite some time and other areas have wikipedia have accepted them also. Of course this can change and if you wish to have them removed you will probably need to start a discussion at WP:RS and see if the consensus moves in a different direction. MarnetteD | Talk 01:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm not proposing we remove all Amazon references... I refer you to my first post above. They have been accepted as a reliable source on this page for release dates of announced products, not for the existence of products not officially announced by the BBC or 2e. They are simply a retailer, and who they may or may not get their info from is neither here nor there; I wouldn't consider Tesco to be a reliable source for the existence of a future unconfirmed DVD either. The BBC's own online shop is an exception however, for reasons that I would think were obvious. Miremare 02:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for misunderstanding your messages. I would just point out that the BBC Shop is a retailer and gets its release info from the exact same source that Amazon does. But we have spent far too much typing on this - my apologies for that too. I think that this page is in good hands as far as getting the dates right and keeping an eye out for fake ones. Now if we could just get on a faster than light ship to set out among the stars, get ahead of the television signal of the missing episodes and then receive and transfer them to DVD we really would have something fun to add to this page. MarnetteD | Talk 02:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Picture

An anon IP is removing the picture claiming that it isn't recent enough. I have restored it based on the following

1. I can find no requirement that this picture must be from recent DVD releases.
2. I am not sure what an updated picture would bring since the graphic layout of the cover sheet has stayed the same for the UK releases (as well as the US ones although we don't have a pic of them) throughout the release history of the DVDs.

If someone wants to add a new pic that would be fine but there is no reason to remove the current pic until then. Other editors thoughts are welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 13:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your view. The version without the picture looks terrible and lacks any visual representation of the style used in the DVD releases. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The caption states that the image includes releases up to early 2009, it's not like it's claiming to be up-to-the-minute. Miremare 16:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

One further thought. Since the titles on the spines are can be read only by those with the keenest eyesight. I am not sure what adding in the titles released since Feb 09 would bring to the article. MarnetteD | Talk 17:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The titles can be read fairly easily if you click on the thumbnail and view the larger image, so it would be worth having a more recent version for this reason. But as one doesn't appear to exist yet, we should certainly keep the current version for now. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's true Alzarian16. I had forgotten about that when I was looking at it. As I said, I am not adverse to a new photo. It is just that there is no reason to remove this one until that comes along. A few things to think about to anyone who may want to add a new pic.

1. Make sure that all of the image requirements are meant. I don't understand them but I am sure that others do. It would be a shame to replace this pic with one that gets deleted a few days or weeks later.
2. Many of the new titles are being released in box sets - They are mostly black in their design. Do we want to include these in a new pic? Or do we want just the individual stories DVDs as presently pictured
3. Do we want to include pics of the regions one releases? There are definite design differences and it might be informative for readers to see these.

Just food for thought as we move to resolve this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 17:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that we don't need to show EVERY release in the photo - but a representative mix of the various region's cover designs (and old and new series) woudl be good - we may want to wait on this as there's rumours that after the new series with Matt Smith starts, ALL DVD releases will use the new logo. Etron81 (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Region 2 Dvds Only —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.169.81 (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

BBFC Clearance

Again, people are adding things based on BBFC clearance. I did bring this up before. This isn't a valid source, as all it does is confirm that it has been okayed by the BBFC and it is no way a guarantee that the release is imminent, or even a guarantee that it will even be released (although likely). Anyone else have any comments? Rob Sinden (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. 2entertain have stated that all complete classic serials are to be released on DVD at some point, so the BBFC passing things tells us nothing we don't already know. Until we have a officially confirmed date there's nothing to say. Miremare 17:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, does anyone have the issue of DWM that lists these new releases (Dominators, RotC, Silver Nemesis etc) so that we can cite that instead of a blog? Miremare 16:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mara Tales has been confirmed for release by the Classic Who Twitter page but no date has been confirmed, I think this is in the same boat as anything from the BBFC since no date is confirmed, the "January 2011" date added is pure speculation. At the moment it looks more likely that Meglos will be released in January since that has actually had the coming soon trailer added to the BBFC (the Mara Tales trailer has not been added to the BBFC despite being complete for months, this indicates to me that Meglos os closer to release) SundableObject (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

BBFC clearance can be given years in advance. In some cases, where the whole of the content has already been released on VHS, no new clearance is necessary for DVD release. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Every Classic Who release requires new clearances as they have new features and commentaries not on the VHS. A coming soon trailer also features on each release indicating which story is arriving soon, 'Meglos' has been cleared just as the extras for 'The Seeds of Doom' extras were which indicates to me that the coming soon trailer for that release is for 'Meglos' which mean the release after 'The Seeds of Doom' is 'Meglos'. Certain exceptions can be made for BBFC clearances I feel, especially when the coming soon trailer is passed, that is a general indication that it will be released within the next few months, it would certainly be helpful to add the story and the year. Certainly if you add the Mara Tales set when the only indication you have of the release is the coming soon trailer then why not add 'Meglos' when the only indication of release is the coming soon trailer?SundableObject (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst this may be an argument to not include Mara Tales, this is not an argument to include stories whose trailers have been reviewed by the BBFC. You can't assume that just because a trailer has been passed that it is definitely going to be released, let alone your assumption that it would be the next release. Past release schedules have proved this. In fact, consensus seems to be that even if the DVD has been passed, it should not be included in the list until it is announced. However, Mara Tales was officially announced (albeit only referenced by a primary source), so there is an argument to include this. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit I don't get how it can be argued that it won't be released reasonably soon using this source. I believe 2 Entertain is a for profit company and the BBFC site says they charge 75 pounds currently to OK a DVD/Blu-ray feature and trailer submission and an additional 6 pounds a minute to view it (if it's the wrong example sorry but it isn't a free service is the main point). Therefore wouldn't they submit something so they could profit from it and want to release it soon after? Although really the 'Coming Soon' ads do seem to indicate it'll be released very soon unless there's a last minute rights issue (which could delay it but not stop it). I'll point out in another section it was complained about Creature from the Pit in January 2010 because of this and it was then released in May. So it seems to be a proven excellent source to indicate what will be released. As well as trustworthy. I'm new so I don't get how they could be considered otherwise. I just don't understand the prejudice against it. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly I can't remember the specifics, but there was a case recently where the story in the "coming soon" trailer was held up for whatever reason, was not the next release, and wasn't released for a time afterwards. Whilst BBFC clearance is a good indicator that the story is likely to be forthcoming, it is by no means a guarantee, and we shouldn't assume unconfirmed future events. See WP:CRYSTAL. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Have 2|entertain ever got something through the BBFC and then not released it? I think not. The only problem is a big one - passing by the BBFC does not guarantee a release date. All else is fine, but we decided long ago not to add DVDs with "TBA" as the sole release date... though I can't see what harm it would do now there's only a couple of dozen intact stories left, and I can't believe any of them will go unreleased. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, by that argument, would you advocate adding all the stories to the list with a "not yet released" tag on each one? I mean, I agree - in all likelihood all remaining stories will be released in some shape or form - but can we assume this for the sake of this article? Rob Sinden (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, we can't, per WP:CRYSTAL. Suppose 2entertain were to collapse overnight (which hopefully won't happen). Then the releases would have to be put back until someone else took over the contract, which might not happen until after DVD is fully replaced by Blu-Ra or whatever. We can't attempt to predict the future. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We could also have a meteor hit and wipe out over 90% of life forms on the planet because Adric failed to stop it. It's unlikely ;). The above scenario of financial collapse could be rethought after that happened unlike mine (i.e. the edit could be undone or redone). I've just looked up the 'Coming Soon' ads that have appeared on the DVDs from 24 September 2007 The Key to Time to 13 September 2010 Time and the Rani in Region 2 (I don't think I included Revisitations 1). I didn't include the box sets of The Complete Davros Collection plus Bred For War due to the single DVD releases. I did include The Key to Time and Remembrance of the Daleks - Special Edition re-releases. There was 36. 2 were on a previous release (The War Machines and Four to Doomsday) due to a change in schedule. 25 were released the next time (at least). 2 were released as the 2nd release as well as 2 for the third. The main ones that had a delay were Trial of a Time Lord (6th & 3rd release from 14 April- 29 September 2008 or 5 and a half months) plus Kamelion Tales (5 October 2009 - 14 June 2010 or 8 months). That means that 31/36 are released within 3 DVD releases, 29/36 within 2 and lastly 27/36 were before; or after one (25 out of 36 or 69%). So it's mainly 75-86% likely to happen based on the past three years. By the way one had no ad as it was a re-release i.e. Remembrance of the Daleks - Special Edition. This is based on DVD releases not BBFC clearance as I need more time on that. But as a random example The Key to Time DVD Extras (469m 23s) were cleared on 20 July 2007 and the Limited Edition was released 24 September 2007 or in about 2 months. All I want is it to be accepted that new clearances will soon lead to new releases. I'll acknowledge a couple of exceptions (but they took 5-8 months at most between DVDs not clearances). Hardly 10 years. For the majority it was quicker. So how is it unreliable again? -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC) (re-edit for humour and grammar) 123.2.138.148 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's unreliable because it boils down to us making assumptions. As an encyclopedia we base our content on what has already been reported by other sources, therefore to state that a DVD is going to be released we need to cite a reliable source that specifically says so. Miremare 15:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh? The BBFC is a source. I'm not asking you to date the item using the (BBFC) source but just to list it. Then use another source to date it. As mentioned above the new clearances mostly lead to new releases pretty soon afterwards. The two delays as mentioned that I know about took months (5-8 between DVDs not clearances as I haven't finished looking things up). But most of them are probably like The Key to Time DVD Extras cleared on 20 July 2007 and the Limited Edition released on the 24 September 2007 in Region 2 which is about 2 months. Also as mentioned Creature from the Pit was cleared in January 2010 and released in May. Either the site is amazingly prescient. Or it's paid to review new footage and to report on it so it can be released to the public in Britain. Due to British Law. So therefore must be truthful and reliable or face criminal charges. How is that not trustworthy? -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) The BBFC are not untrustworthy, they simply don't tell us when DVDs are going to be released. 2e decides if and when their releases go ahead, not the BBFC. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the BBFC should be used to list a DVD and another source to date it. If we don't have a date there's no need to list it at all (just as we don't list Invasion of the Dinosaurs for example, because we don't know when that's coming out either), and if we did have a source for the date, then we wouldn't need the BBFC source anyway. But really, what's the hurry? What's the problem with waiting for a proper source? Miremare 17:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

An example of a BBFC clearance that did not lead to a release is Scream of the Shalka - it was cleared for release by the BBFC on 20 September 2005, but there is no DVD release planned as yet. Etron81 (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"'Mara Tales was officially announced (albeit only referenced by a primary source)". I have been told that Twitter is not considered an official source, certainly when I added a reference about 'Meglos' being released it was taken down because they said Twitter is not an official source (I guess regardless of who is running the Twitter page in question). All we got from the post on Twitter was that a coming soon trailer had been made for Mara Tales for release in 2011 (which could easily change as it did with the Cybermen box set originally set for 2009 but not released till 2010) and that is exactly the same information I could gather from 'The Ark' having a coming soon trailer added to the BBFC (which the Mara Tales trailer still hasn't been added by the way). But of course now we know 'The Ark' will be released in January 2011 by information from 2|E. SundableObject (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

missing/unreleased episodes

please see my comments here. I'm thinking instead of just saying how many intact vs. incomplete/ episodes per doctor have yet to be released, maybe we can say which are which. This way people can tell which ones can and can't be released. This probably will only needed for the first two doctors --T1980 (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing Dalek DVDs

I have just noticed in the picture that some of the Dalek DVD's like 'Destiny', 'Ressurection' and 'Rememberance' and the 'Five Doctors 1999' DVD's are not in the new uploaded picture. Not all Region 2 DVD's are shown here. -- 16:33, 8 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.47.56 (talk)

There's a picture of the Davros box set which contains all of them, although since no other box sets are shown in this form it may be better to get one where they're separate. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not released

A few people I know are finding it frustrating having to keep checking what's not released yet, so I've added that to each Doctor. --Matt (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Region 1 Separate volumes

The separate volumes for region 1 all have "TBA" written for the release date, that indicates that a release is planned but not announced yet. This is misleading I think. At the moment it seems likely that no release of the seperate volumes will happen in region 1 so I think "No Release Planned" or "n/a" would be better in place of "TBA". I changed this before but it was changed back to "TBA" so I thought I'd bring the discussion here. SundableObject (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not pay attention to the section where you were adding n/a. It looks like they have stopped marketing the individual episode sets of the new series in the US/Canada/ Please feel free to change them back. MarnetteD | Talk 19:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Table for spin-offs?

I thought it might be a good idea to have a table for the various spin-offs and their release dates in the different formats (K9 and Company, Torchwood, Sarah Jane Adventures, K9). Anybody agree? Certainly I think Torchwood requires one and this would be a good place for it, it has had 3 seperate releases for Series 1 and then it was followed by DVD and Blu-Ray box sets, alot of information missing from this page which I think fits under the banner of "Doctor Who" SundableObject (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say releases that are not explicitly Doctor Who are outside the scope of this list, though a separate list for spin-offs might be an idea. Miremare 21:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sortable tables?

Would anyone object if i converted this lot to sortable tables? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

With the row/column spanning I don't think this will be possible without compromising the layout of the tables. Besides, as there are individual tables for each Doctor, I don't really see what would be gained. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Pertwee B&W episodes

I've added a note about the three Pertwee stories requiring colourisation to the page. I wasn't sure whether this was in the scope of this page so I thought I would ask here whether it is a useful addition or if I should remove it. I thought, what with the Hartnell and Troughton releases noting stories with missing episodes, it would be helpful to do the same for Pertwee and the stories missing colour. SundableObject (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the item. At this time there is no information as to whether they will colourise them ala Planet of the Daleks. Extensive work would need to be done on Ambassadors... and Mind of... and we don't know if they will have the inclination or the financing to do this. The analogous situation is if we had started saying that they would do animations for all missing episodes for the 1st and 2nd Dr's as the did with Invasion. Our guessing whether they will or won't add colour to the remaining 3rd Dr stories and thus violates both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Once final decisions on those releases are made and when the DVD's are released and we will have sources to add to the article explaining what occurred. MarnetteD | Talk 01:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

They certainly have the inclination, I've read some comments from the Restoration Team and 2|E have paid for a HD scanner to further improve the possibility of re-colourising the remaining B&W Pertwee stories. They've also delayed 'The Mind of Evil' to the end of the range to further improve the chances of a colour release. We do know that 'The Invasion of the Dinosaurs' will be done, on the DVD of Planet of the Daleks on a bonus feature Dan Hall mentions that one episode being colourised is possible on a DVD budget but more isn't (so The Mind of Evil will rely on the chroma dot recovery system as will Ambassadors).SundableObject (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. The thread that I started here Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Clarification has taught me a bunch about this new process. If you have a source that you can add please feel free to re-add the info. MarnetteD | Talk 20:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarify

This bit, under the heading Features...

With few exceptions (noted below), each of the 'classic series' stories have been carefully restored...

Am I missing the note below? Is the last paragraph in the introductory section referring to the Doctor Who DVD Files magazine? It isn't clear. If so that information should be merged into the preceding one. And regarding The Five Doctors section under Special Releases: shouldn't the paragraph conclude stating the the 25th anniversary edition was also released in R1? Just suggestions. Thanks. Derekbd (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the Doctor Who DVD Files magazine reference away from the intro to its own section, as it isn't part of the main release schedule, and slightly re-worded the audio release section. Hopefully this is what you meant, and hopefully this clears any confusion.

Not sure of the necessity to note release of the 25th anniversary Five Doctors in the section. No harm to do so I suppose, but it is included in the table. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with last edit

The last edit caused a problem with the First Doctor's table (the bottom is left off). Also The Ark isn't there. Plus the person that took The Ark off the top of the list didn't reduce the count from four to three complete stories yet to be announced. I'm not sure how to fix the table problem and don't want to mess anything up if I tried to edit it. Thank you to anyone that can and does do it. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added The Ark back into the "still to be announced" bit, but not sure what you think is missing from the bottom of the table. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm new here so don't know the ins-and-outs but it was mentioned on Gallifrey Base in the news section (http://gallifreynewsbase.blogspot.com/2010/09/ark-coming-to-dvd.html if this link is against the rules please delete it). As the "Coming Soon" ad for the serial has been approved for viewing. If this isn't good enough fine. It'll change when people get something they do approve of (probably soon). Whatever that is. Although sorry to be pedantic but the bottom line still is missing from the table. I don't know how to fix it. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion regarding BBFC clearance as a reliable source. Just because a trailer for something has been cleared is not notification of its imminent release. An official release schedule announcement that is then reported elsewhere (amazon, etc)would provide a good source.

Still not sure what you mean about the line missing from the bottom of the first doctor table. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If the table is considered a big box (made of lines) the sides and the top exist but the bottom doesn't. So it's a table looking table instead of a box (i.e. it has three sides or lines rather than four). So something went wrong in an edit. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line's still showing up for me. Could there be something wrong at your end? Alzarian16 (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know. But all the other tables look fine except the First Doctor's table on my computer. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way it's the line under The War Machines if that helps. Is it only me? -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind it's now fixed. Thank you. :) -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

VHS Releases?

I think it would be a good idea to create a list (in a seperate artcile) for the official Doctor Who releases on VHS (better known as videos). I wonder who's with me, as i've been thinking about this for a while and i think it's worth some consideration.--77.99.231.37 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't see why not. Don't you have to register to start an article though? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Regions 1 and 4 releases from 2011

Since it has been announced that the DVD release schedule for R1 and R4 are to be synchronized with the R2 releases in 2011, should we start listing at least the year, if not the month, on any new releases that have a R2 release date set? For instance, if The Mutants is to be released in Feb 2011 in R2, isn't it safe to assume that it will be released at the same time in R1 and R4? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.174.153 (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's a case of us having to assume, then no, as we can only repeat citable facts. But if it's the case that releases are synchronised, there will be sources from both regions anyway. Miremare 21:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to add footnotes and the like so I'll just point out Devoted DVD has listed Meglos to be released 20 January 2011 (www.devoted.com.au plus I hope this too is allowed). -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

R4 release date/New Zealand

Maybe something could be added to point out the R4 release date applys to Australia with a slightly delayed release date for New Zealand. For instance the release date for the Revenge of the Cybermen/Silver Nemesis box set is the 7th of October in the article, but won't be until the 3rd of November in New Zealand.121.72.131.37 (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be worth mentioning, though we'd need a source. Miremare 21:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So someone using 2entertain as a source is not good enough?

I recently used this website article (http://blogtorwho.blogspot.com/2010/11/january-2011-dvd-lineup.html I hope this link is allowed if not please modify it to be acceptable, however, it was used) to update the release dates of a couple of these stories i.e. The Mutants and Meglos. As I don't know how to add something to this site (i.e. the Christmas episode). And thought someone else with more knowledge would do so. But what I didn't expect is someone rejecting someone using 2entertain as a source. Especially as they mentioned the specific dates involved of three releases. This site just seems crazy to me. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that this self-published blog is not a reliable source. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So a blog is dismissed even if they provide information from 2entertain? Including particular dates. If they turn out to be true will it then be reconsidered that it might be a source? Or is the messenger just too unacceptable even though they review DVDs before they show up and seem to have some sort of relationship or contact with them. -Angeloz123.2.138.148 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Blogs aren't generaly notable enough to be used as reliable sources. Unless the blog in question has built up a reputation, it can't be used. DonQuixote (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Then if Meglos gets announced to be released 10 January 2011 will the site be considered as a potential source? And then if the other two work out too then it might be used i.e. The Mutants on 31 January and the Christmas episode on 24 January 2011? Or are people against proof around here? Or wait to see it go right or wrong and deleting when it is wrong. By the way if it doesn't work out then I'll see your point. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It'll require more proof than being right on those occassions. Take, for example, psychics who are "right" half the time (average correctness for random guessing for anyone). The site has to build up a reputation for how it gets its information and what its sources are. That is, it's got to be more than just a rumour mill. DonQuixote (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

How many times? I thought three would be reasonable enough to start with. By the way with the proviso that if it announces last minute changes to these things or others that they be taken into account too (especially if it turns out to be true) so it might become a reliable source. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way how is talking to 2entertain a considered a psychic experience? I can understand the rumour dismissal but not the psychic one (actually I get it was an analogy: it just seems false). That said they do seem to have a relationship with this site. But I'm willing to wait it's just I want to know if it really is pointless to expect some sensible policy around here about this because it doesn't fit the '100% acceptable source only' and anything that happens to be true is just dismissed and undone automatically. Even though it's true. I'll admit that's why I don't go to this site first. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been a little clearer. Getting a few release dates correct isn't enough to make the site reliable (no more than a psychic getting a few predictions right). The point is that they need to build up a reputation based on how and from whom (such as 2entertain, etc.) they get their info. DonQuixote (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Further to that, the relevant part of WP's verifiability policy states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The problem with sources like this is that anyone can claim in their blog that "2|entertain have announced" something. In this case we're given nothing more than that - no indication of where or when or by whom or to whom, which doesn't help. And if it did provide such details, it should be that original source that we cite if possible, rather than the blog. Miremare 18:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Blogtor Who is a reliable source. Dan Hall from 2|E (the head of the Doctor Who range) has given Blogtor Who some exclusives in the past (see this - http://blogtorwho.blogspot.com/2010/09/exclusive-meglos-region-1-dvd-artwork.html - and this - http://twitter.com/#!/classicdw/status/22965026888). You can look at all the past articles to see how reliable the dates are too. SundableObject (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Reporting something that's true doesn't make a source reliable. The criteria in WP:RS define reliable sources, and blogs, with very few exceptions, don't qualify. Miremare 18:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Truth doesn't matter????????? See this is where I think this section has gone wrong. All I want and I suspect most people want (that come here and use the site) is a list that can tell us when to expect a new DVD release. I don't care if it came from an unusual place as long as it is reliable and reasonably accurate. Just for the next 6-12 months (or the like). I do also love it for the history of the releases. It's like some people here just don't want to update the site. By the way thank you SundableObject I appreciate what you've tried to do. I guess it's pointless to point out this is a DVD list. Not a biographical section. And things can be edited again. I don't expect this place to be perfect. Just to use something that is reasonably accurate. I don't care if it's on an official approval list or disapproval list. As they are often foolishly ignoring the reliability of a site. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Truth doesn't matter? In a way. "Verifiability, not truth" has always been one of the core tenets of Wikipedia and rightly so. You may only be after something that's "reasonably" reliable or accurate, but a reader should be able to read any article on Wikipedia (not just biographies) with the expectation that any facts given are properly and reliably sourced. Blogs have no editorial oversight - they contain whatever the blogger wants them to contain, including any "release date" the individual in question feels like typing in. I'm not saying the blog in question isn't quoting the correct date. Maybe it is. The point is we have absolutely no way of knowing because it hasn't been reported by a reliable source yet! I don't think it's much of a stretch to see why that makes blogs unsuitable as sources for an encyclopedia. It's not that "some people don't want to update the article", it's that it doesn't need to be updated at the first sign of a rumour of a new release. When 2e, or a reliable third party, mention it, we can add it. What's the hurry? Miremare 00:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

OK then how does one get the site approved i.e. to be a verifiable source? I'll note I'm only after the DVD dates not anything else (I don't object to other things being approved or rejected). I'm not after it being approved for biographies for instance and never would. Because it seems strange to me that their history of reliability doesn't count. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any other way to get it approved to be a source of DVD dates that is OK for it to be just that too i.e. some classification that I don't know about that can be used? -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the site won't get "approved" overnight. We, as in the people at Wikipedia, don't make a site notable. The site becomes notable by its actions and by other people who take notice of it. When it gets notable enough, then we bow to its notability and "approve" its usage. DonQuixote (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes

I wish you wouldn't automatically delete the newbies if they don't know how to add a footnote (it happened to me although it did cause me to look up how I'll admit). By the way can someone put the link to the Wikipedia footnote section below? As I don't know how to do links. Thank you. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody gets reverted for not formatting a footnote correctly if that's what you mean. But if a suitable reference isn't provided at all, a revert is often necessary. Also, you link stuff by enclosing the name of the page you're linking to in double square brackets, so [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes)]] results in: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes). Miremare 13:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link (plus examples). I hope it helps others as well as I. If you look above under Region 1 and 4 releases from 2011 you'll see I listed Meglos (Region 4) at the time; I didn't know how to link. A day or more later nobody had spotted it. So I added it without a link as I still didn't know how. It was my first edit and was afraid of doing something wrong. I got deleted. C'est la vie. This isn't a complaint just a request. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, I think if you had included the link in your edit in some form, or in the edit summary, it would have been fixed rather than reverted. But a basic ref is easy to add though - just use the row of buttons above the editing window - the ref one is second from the right - and paste in the link where shown. Miremare 15:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Number of discs row

I was thinking it may be helpful to people if we add a row for number of discs in between the row for number of episodes and R2 release date. What do you all think? Certainly room for it on each table. SundableObject (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Like this?

Season	Story #	Serial name	Number and duration of episodes	Number of discs	R2 release date	R4 release date	R1 release date
21	137	The Twin Dilemma	4 × 25 min.	1	7 September 2009	3 December 2009	5 January 2010

A whole new column? Hmm. I prefer this:

Season	Story #	Serial name	Number and duration of episodes (number of discs)	R2 release date	R4 release date	R1 release date
21	137	The Twin Dilemma	4 × 25 min. (1)	7 September 2009	3 December 2009	5 January 2010

Or, slightly tweaked, this:

Season	Story #	Serial name	Number and duration of episodes	R2 release date	R4 release date	R1 release date
21	137	The Twin Dilemma (1 disc)	4 × 25 min.	7 September 2009	3 December 2009	5 January 2010

I'm in favour of having the number of discs somewhere, but not in their own column Totnesmartin (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Could save space though by only including the information if it is more than one disc. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So is this a good compromise?

Season	Story #	Serial name	Number and duration of episodes	R2 release date	R4 release date	R1 release date
21	137	The Twin Dilemma	4 × 25 min.	7 September 2009	3 December 2009	5 January 2010
22	138	Attack of the Cybermen	2 × 45 min.	16 March 2009	7 July 2009	7 July 2009
	139	Vengeance on Varos	2 × 45 min.	15 October 2001	14 August 2003	4 March 2003
	140	The Mark of the Rani	2 × 45 min.	4 September 2006	2 November 2006	7 November 2006
	141	The Two Doctors	3 × 45 min. (2 Discs)	8 September 2003	7 January 2004	1 June 2004
	142	Timelash	2 × 45 min.	9 July 2007	31 July 2007	1 April 2008
	143	Revelation of the Daleks	2 × 45 min.	11 July 2005	1 September 2005	6 June 2006
23	144 145 146 147	The Trial of a Time Lord: The Mysterious Planet (4 episodes) Mindwarp (4 episodes) Terror of the Vervoids (4 episodes) The Ultimate Foe (2 episodes)	13 × 25 min. 1 × 30 min. (4 Discs)	29 September 2008	2 January 2009	7 October 2008

SundableObject (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. It saves writing (1 disc) a hundred times! It just needs to have a note at the top saying "one disc each unless stated." Totnesmartin (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor releases

The section states

All releases for Series 5 contain no next time trailer on the end of each episode.

We really need a citation for that, although having done my own WP:OR it appears to be basically true: I've just found an off-air recording of Victory of the Daleks, and compared it to the Region 2 DVD (BBCDVD 3213). Up to 40:44 they are almost identical (the BBC logo seen about four seconds from the start differs). From this point on, the broadcast version has: 40:44 "Next Time"; 41:16 closing credits; 41:45 advert for "Doctor Who Adventure Games"; 42:26 "BBC Cymru Wales" copyright; 42:29 end. However, the DVD has: 40:44 closing credits; 41:10 "BBC" copyright; 41:16 end. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

tables

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

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