Talk:Doctor Who series 7

Production Codes

Have the production codes been confirmed by DWM? Often the order of episodes changes — and some sources say that it has — so I was curious. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Production coding was scrapped according to Edward Russell on Twitter after The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Episode Viewer Ratings

Just as a query, where did A Town Called Mercy's 9.47 final ratings appear from? I don't believe the BARB association has released any information regarding official ratings yet for this episode. I suggest we wait until the final ratings have been released before writing guesses down, don't you agree? If I am being totally off-hand then please tell me, because I haven't heard of ratings being released so early after the episode's airing.

No spoilers please!

I understand some people have gotten advance copies of the series finale. Please don't post any spoilers! 69.125.134.86 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I know this is some time ago, but I thought I'd follow up with a comment: we don't censor Wikipedia. However, we also don't accept plot synopses (other than sourced 'preview'-style ones common with films or from TV guides) prior to the first general release of the episode. It's unclear where a leak would feature, but in my opinion, the content is not citable with a leak.  drewmunn  talk  14:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Saying that Gillian and Darvill departed the series in the fifth episode in the beginning paragraph is unneccessary, because anyone who watches the show will figure out what that means! For example, this editor came here to glance at the titles of the episodes. If readers want to know all the character deaths, they can read the plot synopses, which this editor, and probably most people, is not stupid enough to do before watching the actual episode. (I'd ask if the page really has to say that this is the final season to feature Smith, Darvill and Gillian, but I suppose the answer is yes.)

Please learn how to sign your posts on talk pages. And create your own section if you have an issue with the article. To the topic at hand, all I see from you is speculation. Not all readers are watchers of the show. We give details and actual facts; if they happened and are sourced, they're included. Just because one editor things it "unnecessary", doesn't mean it isn't. Don't assume that readers are here for only one part - they're more than likely here for the entire article. Alex|The|Whovian 14:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Season section subheadings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There seems to be an edit war brewing over the season 7 subheadings recently added by Alex The Whovian. They are entirely reasonable, and quite helpful, but one editor has engaged in an edit war to remove them, but has made no effort to discuss them here, while claiming Alex has no consensus for what are perfectly reasonable, non-controversial edits. There's been a little discussion on Alex's talk page, but the discussion needs to take place here, particularly now that the removing editor has exceeded WP:3RR. --Drmargi (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

But my edits are reverting to how it has been for the last two years. Therefore it is user:Drmargi and user:AlexTheWhovian who need to achieve consensus, not me. I accept I've accidently broken 3RR (hadn't realised how many times I've edited).Theoosmond (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You share the burden, especially when you demand consensus. As soon as you reverted, you should have opened this discussion. This is a perfectly routine addition of sub-headings. --Drmargi (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you should start the discussion, since it's you who's going against the status quo, not me. And don't go on that this is about a little tiny edit that everyone should be happy with, it is not a minor edit in any respect and therefore need WP:CONSENSUS.Theoosmond (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

How on Earth does this even need consensus? Not every edit made to a page needs to be discussed. Drmargi is right, it was and is up to you to explain why they are not needed. I've already done that. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you two are the ones changing something from how it has been for years, and therefore you need to achieve consensus, since the edit is a major one. It shouldn't be like this beacuse it complicates the table, and you can tell what parts they're in from the broadcast dates, if a reader wanted to know. And how is 'The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe' in part 1? You don't need these headers making a simple table look so complicated.Theoosmond (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No. It's not a major edit. When will you understand that? You can tell? Great. And? Consensus not needed. Go reply to the warning that was filed against you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit is major because it's an untested idea and Wikipedia has never on episode tables done this kind of thing with Series 6 or 7. I know consensus isn't needed for every edit, don't treat me like an idiot. And anyway, action isn't going to be taken against me. And don't try and make me go away from this, I won't.Theoosmond (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Untested idea? What on Earth are you talking about? According to AWB, there are 36 pages with this in place. And there's been zero issues. "Wikipedia has never on episode tables done this kind of thing" - you know, minus the three examples I gave you before plus another 33. Series 6 had a mere mid-season break, but Series 7 was and is widely known by its two parts and should be sectioned as such. Technically, Part 2 should even have different colours. You're grasping at straws here. "Consensus needed". "Untested idea". "Never done this". This is definitely a case of you not liking it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a untested idea for Doctor Who. It was fine before, so I should be left like that, uncomplicated. The idea works for episodes with series with many episodes, where it can be hard to tell where the split is, but Doctor Who does not have long series, and adding these headings just makes the table messy hard to read. They are very much NOT different series, the story arc was shown in the premiere. And if they were different series, why aren't they series 7 and 8, not part 1 and 2.Theoosmond (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who. A TV show. Same as all the rest. There is literally zero foundation behind "This is a untested idea for Doctor Who". You think that it's different to other shows, but it is not. The table separates the parts on the List of Serials page, so it makes it easier to read. Then there's "The idea works for episodes with series with many episodes" - Doctor Who? Many episodes? It has over 800! And where did I say that they were different series? I never did. Never. Do not put words in my mouth. I said that they were widely known by their two parts, as in Series 7 Part 1 and Series 7 Part 2. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant series with the no. of episodes being 25 in that series as opposed to Doctor Who, which has 12 or 13 episodes in each series since 2005. This is why it's different to other shows. And you're acting like every single 36 you've said exist, but what about the ones such as The Walking Dead, which don't have these headings?Theoosmond (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Walking Dead? Mere mid-season breaks, much like Series 6. They are not explicitly known or advertised as Season 6 Part 1 and Season 6 Part 2. Different case. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

But what's the difference between mid-series breaks and what your claiming series 7 to be.Theoosmond (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

A mid-season break is a break of at least several weeks in the normal schedule of broadcast programming. A parted season is where the season is explicitly advertised as Part 1 and Part 2, as all of the shows I linked to before were/are, including Series 7. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And do you have sources to support this? And anyway, wouldn't all 2-parted series have separate adverts for both parts, and would have to say what each part was?Theoosmond (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources that it was advertised as Series 7 Part 1 and Series 7 Part 2? I gave you such a link before. And not necessarily. Even if they did or didn't, that's not a reason to not include the "Part" headers, which is what this discussion originally was. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're refering the BBC website, I told you why the parts are split, because 'the Snowmen' was broadcast in the middle of the break and they wanted all the episodes in chronological order, meaning they had to do that.Theoosmond (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

To quote you: And do you have sources to support this? Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source to say that the reason for two parts is because of advertising?Theoosmond (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Answering a question with a question. Sorry, but discussing with you is like banging my head against a brick wall. Perhaps you should do some Googling to see how common the Part names are for this series. Until then, the headers remain. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I'll be honest, I don't have a source that the reason for showing the two parts on the BBC website is so the episodes are in chronological order, it's just the most logical explanation. Could you now answer my question, please?Theoosmond (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, here is a trailer released by the official BBC YouTube channel entitled "Doctor Who: New Series 7 Part 2 (2013) Launch Trailer" - is that what you're after? Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

But surely they would have to advertise as Series 7 part 2, since the parts are broadcast at completly different times, so adverts for series 7 in general wouldn't do any good. There is also this trailer for series 6 part 2, which explicitly states similar to your source, even though you've stated series 6 doesn't need the headings, so I'm afraid your source won't do. Sorry.Theoosmond (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you still have any arguements for having the headings?Theoosmond (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian: If you don't reply to this message by 13:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC), I will assume that you are OK with me reverting the table to how it was before.Theoosmond (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Jesus, mate. Take note of the notice on my pages - I'm on holiday, I'm not always active. And yes, I do - I'm working on it. You still seem very hell bent (pun intended) on reverting - not a good case for the discussion or your warning. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, just get your arguements here fairly soon, I'm not rushing you. There is no matter of urgency now I think of it.Theoosmond (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the headers 'it hasn't been done before' is a rather weak argument, since series 7 was the first time in DW history that two halves of the same season had a special in between them. I also don't see why it shouldn't be added to others. Series 6 was advertised as part one and part two as much as series 7 was [so much so that at one stage, Moffat suggested that the 2011 series was 'series 6 and 7' in DWM]. just one thing on this page- shouldn't the part one header be above asylum though - that's where the advertisement for that begins. doctor, widow, wardrobe was a special.2.222.71.129 (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Series 6 should also have headings as it is standard practice to have headings for a split series of a show, regardless of advertising. Also, I think another heading is needed for "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" as it isn't part of Part 1, and a line isn't necessary above a heading. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It isn't standard pratice to have these headings, it's a some do, some don't.Theoosmond (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just realised there's another problem with these headings, the specials are under separate headings, so the headings imply they are not really part of the series.Theoosmond (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

How? It says 'series 7' for all of them, then sub divides them into the different parts: two specials, part one and part two. And yes it isn't 'standard practice' - it can't be standard practice. No other split season in Doctor Who had a special in the middle. 2.222.71.129 (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Any issues at hand with the section headers should now be fixed. Both Series 6 and 7 now have headers, with the first ones set beneath the initial specials. And Theoosmond, the specials aren't really part of the series. The series airs, breaks off, a special airs, the series resumes, then concludes. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll offer you a deal, you remove the heading in the table for series 6 and 7, but break the table into the two parts and the separate specials, leaving the tables the same colour.Theoosmond (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A deal? What do you think this is? It's a discussion, not a place for "deals". I disagree with this - that would be even more disruptive than the headings! Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable. We do what's best for the article. We don't wheel and deal. --Drmargi (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

But since you seem to regard series 7 almost two different series, it'll now imply this and you can talk more of the part 2 related stuff next the the episodes in part 2, especially on 'List of Doctor Who serials'.Theoosmond (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Same series, different parts. Not different series, I've never said that. Déjà vu, it's like I've told you not to put words in my mouth... This discussion isn't going anywhere. The entire existence of that template is for situations where a season is split into two. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I support the part markers added by AlexTheWhovian. I oppose splitting the episode list into multiple tables, as that's exactly why the part markers exist, and it would be a waste of screen space to have separate tables. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian:I didn't say you said they were different series, I said you seem to think they are almost different series.Theoosmond (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, so you have obviously rejected that idea, back to square one, the headers shouldn't be there as it is too much hassle to decide if Doctor Who should have these headings, it's a some do, some don't, and everyone seemed happy without the headings until you came along. And don't say obviously nobody has thought to put them in, or have not known of the existence of Episode table/part, you have no evidence what so ever.Theoosmond (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I am in full support of the headings. This was an unusual season where the broadcast schedule was adjusted to both position programming to accommodate the Olympics and to prepare for the 50th Anniversary sequence of episodes. Given the unusual circumstances, the headings more fully represent how the season worked, and are appropriately encyclopedic. The season's entries on the BBC iPlayer are labeled as Part 1 and Part 2, and are consistent with the headings in the article. There's not valid reason to remove them. The "everybody's happy without them" argument doesn't hold water. You have no evidence that's the case. --Drmargi (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. – nyuszika7h (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The arguement 'everyone seemed happy without the headings' is legitamate, it would have been changed much sooner otherwise. And how do you know on the BBC website didn't show on the episode guide the two parts just because they wanted the episodes in chronological order, and due to 'The Snowmen', the only way to achieve this was splitting the series up. That would seem the most logical explanation, since series 6 isn't split up.Theoosmond (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

And how do you know that's how the BBC worked it? You don't either, given that you're claiming that it "would seem the most logical explanation", so tat's entirely original research and completely ignored. And you're the only editor opposing it, so minus you, everyone seems happy with the headers as well. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The BBC did divide the series, and it was well-documented throughout the series run, including in the article. That you haven't done sufficient homework to know this simply weakens your position. At this point, Theoosmond is grasping at straws. I don't see a good, policy-based reason to remove the headings, and support for retention from multiple editors. I think it's time we call it consensus and ask a neutral admin to close this discussion. --Drmargi (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is NO consenus if not all editors agree with the proposal. There is absolutely no need for these headings, a reader can either work out when the split was from the when the dates are or form reading the first paragraph. The headings thing is a some do, some don't and Doctor Who shouldn't as one series is too short to split into two with the headings, it only works on series which have had one part of the series with at least 15 or so episodes which are not specials, like all the examples User:AlexTheWhovian gave me on his talk page, which then is quite helpful, it can be hard to tell where the split is. As for Doctor Who, this series has never had more than 13 episodes in a series since it was revived and therefore is too small to have the headings without making the table messy and is dead easy to find the split, expecially with "The Snowmen". As for my last edit on this discussion, I don't have any evidence, but AlexThe Whovian and Drmargi have no evidence that it is like that because the BBC believes they should be separate. I have as much say as any other editor, so I've put my comments here, on the most appropiate discussion page, and I'm not doing this because I don't like it, it simply doesn't work, even though it's a nice idea.Theoosmond (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Theoosmond Consensus does not mean a unanimous agreement, consensus is the majority opinion. If consensus required unanimous agreement, then every discussion at Wikipedia could be stonewalled by one person. Based on the arguments presented above, it was clear that the prevailing preference is add the subheading, with the strongest arguments pointing out a significant episode gap, the introduction of a special mid-season, (which one editor argued had not been done before) along with the BBC promoting "part 2" of the series. Your arguments were almost entirely focused on tradition ("It was fine before, so I should be left like that, uncomplicated" and "everyone seemed happy without the headings until you came along"), which is logically fallacious. Your attempts to reopen a closed discussion [1][2][3] were entirely inappropriate and constitute edit-warring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doctor Who (series 7). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120827022406/http://www.spacecast.com:80/article/Doctor-Who-Season-7-Premiere-Date-Announced to http://www.spacecast.com/article/Doctor-Who-Season-7-Premiere-Date-Announced
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831060139/http://blogs.abc.net.au:80/abc_tv/2012/08/the-doctor-to-premiere-on-iview.html to http://blogs.abc.net.au/abc_tv/2012/08/the-doctor-to-premiere-on-iview.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://de.twitter.com/Primetv_NZ/status/240692485335175168

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who (series 7)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 10:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I'll grab this one for review for you. Will try get the review up in the coming days. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is pretty close to the standard, just a few improvements that I think should be made before promoting:

• I think it would make sense to adjust the dates in the lead to avoid duplication. If you are going to break down the airing dates for the different parts and specials then you shouldn't need the premiere/finale dates in the first sentence.
• The list of broadcasters in the second sentence of the lead feels a bit TV Guide-y to me.
• The plot summary for "Rain Gods" seems like it could be fleshed out a bit.
• The circumstances in which the pair leave... It is a little unclear whether this is talking about the real-world circumstances or the fictional circumstances.
• You mention Moffat's "soft mystery" plan but this isn't elaborated on. I feel like a better explanation of this would add to the article.
• Grant later returned in... this sentence is unsourced.
• The critical reception section seems a bit small, is there any more that can be added here?

Let's start with those for now and I can reassess the article once you have had time to respond. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review! Here's my responses to the above points.

• Dates fixed, other channels removed.
• "Rain Gods" only runs for 90 seconds, but I've expanded on it where possible.
• Rewritten the circumstances sentence, expanded on Mof's "soft mystery" plan with an episode link, sourced Grant.
• The article has six separate critical reception entries, in addition to Rotten Tomatoes, which is on par to earlier series articles. I feel it's fine, but if you're definite about adding more, I can find some old articles that reviewed the series.

Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Those changes all look good so far. Maybe for the reception just take a look at any of the reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes for the season and see if there is anything in the ones that have not been included yet that could add to the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. From Rotten Tomatoes: TV Fanatic, Radio Times and SFX Magazine only reviewed singular episodes, IGN and Groucho Reviews were already in the article, and Common Sense Media only listed a generic review for the whole programme (as seen here). I was able to use Under the Radar's review, so I've added that. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that work in Alex, I'm happy with the improvements made. I'll go ahead and pass this review. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

First/last appearances of characters in episode lists

User:Blacksummerisfuntimescauseitsonnetflix has been adding First/Last appearances of characters to all the revived series Series articles' episode lists summaries. I'm thinking this s too much fannish info for the episode summaries, and is better covered (and in many cases is already) in other sections of the articles. Thoughts? Etron81 (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)