Talk:List of Doctor Who home video releases

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that it's mostly the titles that have been re-issued, for example the original 1999 release of 'The Five Doctors' has been replaced by the 2008 '25th Anniversary Edition' and titles re-issued in the 'Revisitations' box-sets have had their original releases deleted.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OTOH, it might be possible to verify that a title has been formally withdrawn (for example for legal reasons) but it would almost never be possible to reliably source that it had simply gone out of production.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If we can firmly find the title has been withdrawn then it is a more informative list if that is included IMO.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)

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

For the record

Considering the nature of this edit [1] 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 [2] the date of the source is 3 May 2011. It clearly state "There are 24 stories that still exist and have yet to be released on DVD, all of which are expected to be available by the show's 50th anniversary in 2013." It then has a section for 2011 and 2012 releases. Next is a section which reads "Unplaced" and the two titles in question are in that section. This indicates that these stories have not yet been scheduled for release - not that they aren't going to be released. Now new information is coming along all the time - as shown by the fact that The Colony in Space has received a release date for later this year. That only means that we update with the new info as it comes along. We don't junk the old source due to the changes.

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

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

These have been addressed so I will simply summarize.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LiT split into its two volumes

As the discussion above has tailed off, I've changed Lost in Time back into its two constituent Region 1 volumes as before, but splitting them off from the main tables and adding explanetory text about the different release formats in each region to make the nature and purpose of LiT clearer to the reader. This brings the list into total consistency, with each entry, including the two LiT volumes, being an actual "DVD release" in one region or another, per the article title, as well as being consistent with the recent change in boxsets being grouped where appropriate (for those who consider LiT a boxset). This also makes it immediately clear what, in terms of serials and number of episodes, is included in each volume of LiT. It also reverses the huge imbalance of LiT getting 12 separate entries on the list, as well as the consequent "padding out" of the Second Doctor list, making clearer the actually quite sparse range of Troughton DVDs available.

To summarise:

1. The purpose of this article is to list DVD releases. It is now consistent with this purpose throughout - the reader shouldn't be subjected to purpose changes in the same list.
2. Splitting LiT into 12 separate entries grossly imbalances our weight of coverage of what is a single release in all regions, or two releases in Region 1. This removes that problem.
3. The clarity of the list is improved - it is now much easier to see what constitues LiT, as well as making the actual Hartnell/Troughton DVD release tables much clearer by removing entries that aren't DVD releases.
4. Box-sets common to all regions now have their constituent serials grouped together, the same is now true of LiT for those who consider it a box-set.
5. The potential confusion of noting the number of episodes for some complete serials, and the number of existing episodes for LiT constituent serial-fragments, in the same list in almost the same way, is removed. i.e. ("The Celestial Toymaker, (episode 4 of 4)", "An Unearthly Child, (4 episodes)"). A minor ambiguity, but an unnecessary one.

In the interests of getting this sorted out, and given that there was no consensus in the first place for the original change in splitting LiT, I would ask that anyone who disagrees with this change back to what is largely the status quo ante, does not simply revert, but either improve upon it, or bring any objections here to voice them along with reasoned arguments based in logic and policy to counter the points made above. Let's have none of the "I don't like it" stuff - it's unhelpful, gets in the way, and has no place in consensus as explicitly stated in WP:CONSENSUS. If we're to allow a change that subverts the purpose of the article, as well as bringing various other problems with it, there needs to be good reasons to do so, not a subjective preference in favour, no matter how many people have it. Hopefully we can finally bring this saga to an close now. Thanks all, Miremare 21:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Firstly just because the discussion has tailed of does not mean you won. The saga as you put it was maintained through one user, you. It is you that dragged it out standing alone against the other users (Angeloz eventually joined your cause I admit but not until you had resisted consensus along for quite some time alone). Just because some users dropped off over time does not mean their veiws are suddenly invalid, it means they grew tired of constantly arguing with you. It certainly doesn't give you license to change everything they fought to maintain while their backs were turned. As for your arguments, the purpose throughout is not consistant, the purpose is to allow readers to see what has been released on dvd by finding it on the list, it is much easier to find if in order. Putting LiT under separate headings also "grossly imbalances our weight of coverage"". The clarity of the list is not improved as that information was already included further below in the article and being out of order makes it harder to read. The box sets on the list that are grouped together are the ones that are continuous and common to all regions (this was what everyone could agree on when the change was made), the list remains consistant with it in order. And there is no ambiguty, minor or otherwise, with (4 episodes) and (episode 4 of 4), it's pretty clear that one has 4 episodes and the other has 1. Please note that none of the arguments I have just made qualify as "I don't like it" stuff (alot of the argument in the previous discussions didn't either by the way) and there are plenty of good reasons to do so. I will grant you that the original change was premature, but there has since been agreement with the majority of users that splitting them is the better way. Your subsequent change goes against this and is as much a problem as the original change was. I will also grant you your reequest to discuss before changing it back the way it should be, purely as I do not wish to participate in an edit was with you. It currently remains unchanged not because you are right, not because you have the "better argument", certainly not because you are in the majority, but because you are stubborn. Yours is an opinion as much as anyone else's. Finally I just want to say that if you want to end this saga simply concede, you are the minority. 165.228.203.166 (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally I have actually reverted some of your other changes. One is the Tenth Planet/Ice Warriors deletion for which you keep mentioning a previous consensus. I did a little research the last comment on that discussion was made in April and the source was not available until May. The source exists and you are completly alone so far in disputing it. Also I have replaced the number for Marco Polo, a minor but important change. As has been repeatedly stated and backed up, it has just as much right to be included as anything on LiT. In an effort to appease you it is in small font and the main text is also kept as a foot note. This is insufficient, but is a compramise. It is included with The Beggining and made clear that it is not a complete serial. It never in anyway pretends to be a dvd in it's own right. It is there because it was released in some way, but it is clear in which way. 165.228.203.166 (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I am in favour of the way Lost in Time is listed as two items. Everything that appears on a single dvd should be kept together. If things are released on separate discs thats one thing, but when separate episodes are on a single physical object that cannot be broken up (without actually breaking it) then they should not be broken up on the page. Mhtmghnd (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice regarding the discussion/s above

The continued insistence of the anonymous editor above of playing the numbers game was strange enough to lead me to take a look at the users who have taken part in these discussions to see for myself exactly what the numbers were. Only three registered users commented: one who was in favour of the split, one who was "on the fence", and me. But then there's the anons, the source of the apparently all-important majority. There are five of them in favour of the split and, to get straight to the point, they're all the same person. Here's why. They all edit from the Australian Telstra network as shown by the helpful links on every anon WP editor's contrib page:

• User:203.45.112.118 [3]
• User:58.166.112.21 [4]
• User:165.228.203.166 [5]
• User:139.168.132.246 [6]
• User:124.183.122.83 [7]

Could just be a very unlikely coincidence? Well, compare their very narrow editing histories:

• Special:Contributions/203.45.112.118 - Edits Doctor who and Game of Thrones related articles, and others related to Marvel comics and X-Men.
• Special:Contributions/58.166.112.21 - Doctor Who, Game of Thrones, nothing else.
• Special:Contributions/165.228.203.166 - Doctor Who, Game of Thrones, others including Marvel and X-Men.
• Special:Contributions/139.168.132.246 - Doctor Who only, but:
• Special:Contributions/124.183.122.83 - - Doctor Who, Game of Thrones. In a comment above said "Huh, my number has changed. I'm 139.168.132.246". Lost track of who you were meant to be for a moment there, huh?

So well done Mr Anon, you've succeeded in making me feel a bit foolish for feeding a troll for so long without realising it, but enough is enough. Your credibility, as well as your "majority", is gone. Now please go away and stop disrupting the article and talk page. Miremare 23:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Peter Edwards and I will sign all post that way in future. I am Special:Contributions/139.168.132.246, Special:Contributions/124.183.122.83 and apparently Special:Contributions/58.166.112.21. I am not Special:Contributions/203.45.112.118 or Special:Contributions/165.228.203.166. I did not lose track of who I am, but is due to me using an internet cafe which apparently does not stick to the same numbers (don't really understand how this works). I have never attempted to deceive and alert other users immediately when I realized 139.168.132.246 had changed to 124.183.122.83. I did not notice the change from 58.166.122.21 but having re-read previous statements with that number can tell you that that was me too. I apologize if this has confused other users as this was not my intention. Also you will notice that I have recently been swayed towards the grouping of Lost in Time. I actually returned to the talk page to say how I like the way it is currently set up and that it is an improvement on both the previous split version and the even more previous merged version. Also I like the current version of Marco Polo. I do wish we could leave Tenth Planet and Ice Warriors on the page. I would also like to say that I have found the behavior of 203.45.112.118 to be offensive and have stated in the past that his/her behavior is over the top. I do not know if this is in fact 165.228.203.166 as well but believe this could be the case. For the record I have no interest in X-men but do think Game of Thrones is awesome. Peter 121.217.126.125 (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And apparently I'm 121.217.126.125. Peter 121.217.126.125 (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Peter: I'm sure you'll agree that the only people to have taken part in the discussion on that "side" in the last month all being anons, all sharing the same location, all sharing the same ISP, and all editing almost exclusively on Doctor Who and Game of Thrones, either adds up to a quite staggering coincidence... or is highly suspicious. So I hope you will forgive my scepticism here. However, if it really is the former and you are a different person from the other anon as you say above, then you have my apologies and I would suggest you register an account to avoid further confusion. Thanks, Miremare 19:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Account created, scepticism understood and apology accepted. I would like to say again that I was only initally on the same side as the other user/s. I was only opposed to the merging initially as it was confusing squeezed in amongst the rest of them. I was open to having it merged while under a separate heading and having now seen it that way actually prefer it. We also agree on the current listing of Marco Polo being enough. I wanted it included on the list but it does not need to be anything more than it is. The other anons do not agree. I have also personally reverted edits by Special:Contributions/203.45.112.118 and I like to think I'm friendlier too. While there are several similarities, there are also several differences. Either way with me on your side and her/them on the other, the unidentified (though apparently female) user's all important majority is most certainly dead. Again I am sorry for any confusion I have caused and hope we can put this behind us. PeterEdw (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So your saying that we're the same person because we live in the same country (the sixth largest in the world) and we happen to like two of the same show. You've clearly never heard of tact. The fact that we disagree with each other and there have even been edits from one reverted by another means nothing? Clever. Also I'm not happy about the assumption of Mr Anon. Half of us are women you know. 165.228.203.166 (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No. And I'm not particularly happy about having my time wasted for a month and a half so that makes two of us. Miremare 19:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Tenth Planet & The Ice Warriors

Since there's been a bit of an identity argument above (it's why I sign myself as Angeloz in any discussion) I thought it best to separate it from the discussion on whether The Tenth Planet and The Ice Warriors should appear on the list. I just want to add while the list might take some getting used to I do think an improvement over what was and will help those not an expert on the subject. If people have been reading my comments then you might know I'm in favour of including them in the list. Especially if there is a source and The Reign of Terror seems to be getting a release. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I repeatedly asked, to no avail, the IP who kept adding these to cite just one source that explicitly states these two serials have been announced for DVD release, but he would not do so. The only source being touted as an announcement of Tenth Planet/Ice Warriors on DVD in fact does nothing more than note that the two serials are among those that have not been allocated a release slot, but groups them into what it "expects" will get a release in 2013, with no indication of why it expects this. So this is a case of WP:REDFLAG. You mention Reign of Terror which, as another serial with missing episodes that was recently announced for DVD release, is a good example of what I mean, because 2E does announce these things, and reliable sources from websites to newspapers do report on it. But none of this has happened with Tenth Planet/Ice Warriors. Miremare 21:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that some users are interpretting the source in different ways. It is a little unclear in it's wording and therefore should not be used as a diffinitive source. For those of you who think it should be included I suggest patience. If they are coming out, a more obvious source will arise soon enough, hopefully one with an actual date. Either way I think it's safe to say they won't be released for at least a year or two. Mhtmghnd (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Key to Time

I noticed a user has recently merged the regular and special editions of Key to Time into one. Throughout the rest of the list we have kept the special editions separate and feel we should do the same here. Additionally it now reads that in region 1 the stories are also available separately. I presume this is true but don't live in North America so I'm not sure. If this is the case we need to be clear as to whether this availability applies to the special edition, the regular edition or both. Whichever is the case, that edition should also be split by episode to keep with the rest of the article. Any serials that are available separately in at least on region are listed separately (eg Time-Flight and Arc of infinity - only separate in region 1 but listed separately). It is only when serials are only available together eveywhere that we list them together (eg The Rescue and The Romans). Also I'm a little confused as to whether the region 2 and 4 releases count as special edition or not. While I believe the content to be the same as the region 1 special edition and the release dates closer, the region 4 (and I assume region 2) doesn't actually say 'special edition' on the product. PeterEdw (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The change removes a fair bit of repeated text, though granted it's not quite consistent with the rest of the list, as they are very much two separate releases. Perhaps a compromise would be to reinstate the cells for the original release as with other re-releases on the list, but only listing the serials on the re-release. Also mentioning "limited release", "re-release", "vanilla-release" and "special edition" all together is potentially confusing as it could conceivably indicate four different editions. Suggest something like this: Miremare 18:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

16	098 099 100 101 102 103	The Key to Time Season 16 box set initially released in Region 1 only with minimal restoration and extras. Each serial was also released individually. All regions later received the Special Edition below.	26 x 25 min	n/a	n/a	1 October 2002
		The Key to Time – Special Edition The Ribos Operation (4 episodes) The Pirate Planet (4 episodes) The Stones of Blood (4 episodes) The Androids of Tara (4 episodes) The Power of Kroll (4 episodes) The Armageddon Factor (6 episodes) Only available as a box set in all regions.	26 × 25 min.	24 September 2007 Limited release 16 November 2009 Re-release	7 November 2007	3 March 2009

Looks good and less cluttered or confusing to me Miremare. So I have no problems with it. Unless there's a detail that's overlooked that I don't know about. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)