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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DWM DVD update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Running time of alternative versions

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

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

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

Ambassadors delayed

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

Not sure if this is a reliable source, but [4]. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Official Twitter; reliable source?

Hey All;

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

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

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

TBA Dates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source Code, Computer or Editing Problem?

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

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

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

Terror of the Zygones

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

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

Deleted DVDs

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

Lost in Time split

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Space and Time

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

For the record

Considering the nature of this edit [5] and its summary I am afraid we need to get the following items on the record.

1. The edit restored the old version of Lost in Time listing in spite of the fact the discussion above has five editors that are okay with the new version indicating a consensus that it should stay.
2. The section for Marco Polo contains the information "condensed telesnap reconstruction" and that is precisely what has been released on DVD. So there is no ambiguity about its spot in the table.
3. Per the "TBA Dates" thread above consensus seems to have been reached to include all serials in this table. The proviso was to not state how many episodes were being released for the incomplete serials until that could be sourced.
4. The contention that the Tenth Planet and the Ice Warriors have not yet been announced for release and that the source provided does not support their eventual release is just wrong. As can be seen here [6] the date of the source is 3 May 2011. It clearly state "There are 24 stories that still exist and have yet to be released on DVD, all of which are expected to be available by the show's 50th anniversary in 2013." It then has a section for 2011 and 2012 releases. Next is a section which reads "Unplaced" and the two titles in question are in that section. This indicates that these stories have not yet been scheduled for release - not that they aren't going to be released. Now new information is coming along all the time - as shown by the fact that The Colony in Space has received a release date for later this year. That only means that we update with the new info as it comes along. We don't junk the old source due to the changes.

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

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

These have been addressed so I will simply summarize.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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