Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

2007 Doctor Who Christmas Special

I have noticed that an article has been created for the 2007 Doctor Who Christmas special. For now, I have redirected this article to List of Doctor Who serials as its content is mostly speculation. It is currently too early to create this article as we do not have enough information about the story to write it - no doubt this information will appear on the Outpost Gallifrey news page and in DWM within the coming months, at which time we can write the article properly. (I believe a similar situation occurred last year - the proposed deletion failed, so a redirect is probably the best option.) Silver Nemesis 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I've just reverted an edit added Christmas 07 to this page and explained in my edit summary: "rv Christmas Special 2007. We no some things but not enough. Will be on Christmas Day? Will it be 60 minutes? Will it involve Tennatn even??" -- Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 18:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we know it will be a Christmas Special, and it is intended to start Tennant and be directed by James Strong. Length/day of broadcast isn't known. Stephenb (Talk) 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We must keep the individual episode listings

We must keep the name and listing for each individual episode so that my friends can watch them on youtube. Furthermore I think that we sould add the radio plays, comic books, and novelisations to this list. So far this page is the only page that lists "An Unearthly Child" and other missing episodes in sequence with the rest of the series. Off format is wrong. This page is not an episode list, but rather an adventure list. --Ann On A Mouse 11:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't edit a page for your or your freinds personel use, anyway its quite clear how it is right now that there are two separate episodes in some of the storys. Also this paghe is long enough The idea of adding the comics, etc. is not so good for length also this artical is for the episodes and serieals, Other articals cover the comic stips, books etc. --Wiggstar69 13:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is supposed to be an encyclopedic, comprehensive listing of Doctor Who adventures. In the William Hartnell Days, Each segment of an adventure was a seperate episode with a sepparate name. Later on in the Patrick Troughton/Jon Pertwee, and Tom Baker years, Episodes would have several segments with the same name and a different number. I'm just saying that as a refference to Doctor Who, this page could contain more info. Okay, so maybe adding the Comics and Novels is better for a separate page, but all I'm asking is that inside the plot summary section, in the specific episodes' page (not on the Serials Listing page) we at least name the individual episodes. I don't thing that is too much to ask. Go to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_of_Marinus" to see what I mean about braking the Plot Summary down int individual episodes --Ann On A Mouse 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The way episodes are written today and the way they were written in the days of the clasic series (for want of a better term) are VERY different - each episode of the new series merits an episode of its own, whereas each story of the old series was written as one long continuous story. It beggars belief that we can create 750+ individual episode articles, most of which are for 20 minute long episodes. We can get away with it with today's 45 minute episodes. - NP Chilla 23:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

But I'm only talking about William Hartnel and Patrick Troughton, where each half hour episode actualy had seperate names, unlike in the Jon Pertwee to Sylvester Mccoy years when each story arc had only one name. I do not want the individual episodes to be listed on the Serials listing page OR have thier own separate articles. I'm Just upset that the articles themselves do not contain the individual episode names. --Ann On A Mouse 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Any page for a serial with individual episode names DOES already list those names, under the section "Production." --Brian Olsen 15:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actualy, you are wrong (I have renneged this statement due to stupidity), I just had to edit the entry for "Keys of Marinus" to contain the individual episodes because it did not before, neither did "The Romans". Someone then went and reversed my edits and I had to do it again, thankfully, they haven't touched it since then, but there are several cases in the articles for adventures in the old series where the article does not contain individual episode names. So, because I've watched the whole series, I am slowly correcting these oversites, few though there are. --Ann On A Mouse 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm right. The individual episode titles are listed under the section titled "Production," exactly as I said above. They're just not worked into the "Plot" section, which is where you've added them. Here's a link to a version of The Keys of Marinus just before your first edit [1] - the episode titles are there. --Brian Olsen 19:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course, I should have payed closer attention to what you said. My mission is to actualy break down the plot summary into individual episodes. I do not want to destroy any of the original info, but I find it more convinient when broken down into individual episode summaries. That's all, yes I have had no complaint with the production notes so far, sorry for the inacurate accusation on my part. Like I said I should have payed more attention to what you were actualy saying. --Ann On A Mouse 14 may 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I don't have a problem with the plots being broken down into individual episodes - I think several of the episode articles are down that way. And I don't think it's a bad idea to have the names of those episodes at the top of each section. The way it looks now, though, seems a little ungainly to me - is there a way to get smaller headings, or maybe just make the episode titles bold instead of actual section headings? --Brian Olsen 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The section headings allow each episode to be edited individualy. But if someone makes it look better, i will not protest. --Ann On A Mouse 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Origional Airdates

If the Origional Airdates are already written in the seperate articals then why do we need it on the main serials list, the list is suppost to contain only the most important information, if we put the airdate as a collom then stuff like the time it was shown and time it was set will start creeping in. also it makes it look more complicated and messy, also the directors for the fourth Doctor Episodes seem to have been deleted.--Wiggstar69 12:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if the original airdate is already inside the episode article, we do not need it listed on the Serials Listing page as well, That would be redundant. But I do think we could stand to include a little more info on that page. I agree wit you, but as a wigger myself, I find your user name offensive........ just kidding. --Ann On A Mouse 13 may 2007 (UTC)

Minogue rumour

DWA 30 states that she isn't appearing in the show, page 6 I believe. It's an official BBC publication, so as far as I'm concerned that's the end of another crap rumour.

Axeing after series 4

I just saw a sky news headline which claimed that bbc bosses are planning to axe the series after the forth season. However, I cannot find this online. Can anyone find something which might confirm or deny this?--Hammard 09:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/31/dr_who_axe_plan 192.88.212.68 12:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, this daft Sun rumour has been denied by the BBC. See Outpost Gallifrey 31 May]. Tabloid rumours have no place in an encyclopedia. I'd vote for removing the whole section. Who needs to know what rumours have been invented in the interests of selling papers and have later been proven wrong? As to this one: common sense tells you that Russell T will eventually decide he's had enough of Doctor Who. Common sense also tells you the BBC is not going to axe a very successful money-making brand.Gwinva 20:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. 192.88.212.68 20:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They'll just find a new head writer/executive producer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.191.46 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 June 2007

Sci Fi

Not that it seems to have any part in this article, but Doctor Who Series Three premiers in the US on July 6 on the Sci Fi Channel, right after the season concludes in the UK. This includes the Christmas episode, the Runaway Bride. Cary Bass ^demandez 19:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Utopia three parter

The Directors for the Utopia three parter are put like this;

Graeme Harper - "Utopia"

Colin Teague - "The Sound of Drums" and "Last of the Time Lords"

But this takes up a lot of space in the box and to me looks very cramped, instead i'd prefer if it was written like this;

Graeme Harper

Colin Teague

Or this;

Graeme Harper - episode 1

Colin Teague - episode 2 & 3

Does anybody else have thoughts? --Wiggstar69 13:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've failed to find any reliable source supporting the idea that it is a "three parter", since they are entirely different stories the first of which just happens to have a cliffhanger ending, and it's contrary to the way they've been trailed. So I think separating them as they were before provides most information that Harper directed the first story, and Teague the final two episodes. --Cedders^tk 19:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, we can use Frontier in Space and Planet of the Daleks as precedent...or even Keeper of Traken and Logopolis. DonQuixote 02:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've taken that as another good argument to separate them in the list. I've done so in rather a half measure, although it is now clear who directed what, at least. My preference would be to separate them completely into 1 episode and 2 episode, and give the second story number 192, but that would conflict with the pages for individual episodes. The serial numbering is something for which we have good published sources up to Survival, but I don't know what we're basing them on since,, unless it's Outpost Gallifrey which still shows them as two serials. The most recent printed source I know of is DWM 383, and that separates "31.11:Utopia" from "3:12 The Sound of Drums/3.13:Last of the Time Lords". They would appear to be to all intents and purposes separate productions. If you want to argue they are the same story, please do, although there will be more arguments in 5 days' time. --Cedders^tk 13:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess this part of the discussion is moot now. Didn't see that coming.... DonQuixote 14:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather important rule: No original reseach. As the article itself says, "The numbering scheme used here reflects that used in sources..." It's not up to us to decide whether it's 1, 2, or 3 serials, I'm afraid. So it would save a lot of pointless time and effort if people didn't debate what they think it should be, but rather what various sources are saying. --KJBracey 14:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but the sources mentioned in the introduction do not include numbering for the new series. Since 2005 the most prominent and reliable source would presumably be Outpost Gallifrey which at present lists The Sound of Drums and The Last of the Time Lords as a two-part serial 192 [2]. Similarly, the necessity of sourcing claims is why I mentioned Doctor Who Magazine. It is an option to drop the numbering for a while until something reliable is published, which is what I did. Otherwise the provisional guideline would have to be consistency. Historically, sources have denoted different productions with different numbers (as in List of Doctor Who serials#Season 23 (1986)).

In any case, it makes sense to restore the table formatting that shows the correlation of episodes with directors although it was edited out by 87.127.157.166. --Cedders^tk 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

During one of the last two episodes of Totally Doctor Who and Doctor Who Confidential the last three episodes are referred to as "three-parter" and "our first three parter". Taras 10 July 2007

I think the directors' names should be on seperate lines because the episode names, codes and dates are. Is it possible for the director cell to be split into two boxes which line up with the episode names? I'm sure I've seen that before in other Wikipedia charts. 86.140.64.223 15:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Christmas Special 2007

We seem to be having a content dispute over the inclusion of the 2007 Christmas special. Reading further up the discussion page, the original consensus seems to be not to include until we have sufficient concrete information. Can I take it this is still the case? Mark H Wilkinson 09:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep it there. All the information is I think concrete enough (although I'm not so sure about the director). The only thing we don't know about the episode yet is its actual title, which one can assume will be revealed at the end of this series' finale, 'Last of the Timelords', as this was the case with the previous two series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalina 123 (talk • contribs)

Well, we certainly can't verify it'll be broadcast on Christmas Day, yet. Schedules, as anyone who's been watching the current season will know, are rarely set in stone. Mark H Wilkinson 17:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. Whilst it's most likely that it'll be broadcast on Christmas Day, we can't say that it definitely will simply because the previous two were. Incidently, I made a bit of a hash of editing that section just now. I was trying to improve the way that 'Utopia' and 'The Sound of Drums' had been divided. Somehow the Christmas Special is now present on the table again. I'm not sure whether or not we've decided that should be the case. — Catalina 123.

There will be a christmas special, but that is the only verifyable fact at this time (perhaps we know more after "Last of the Time Lords"), so I think it should stay. --Edokter (Talk) 17:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

STOP edit warring over the broadcast date. While it most probably will air on the 25th, that has not been confirmed. Until then, "Christmas 2007" will suffice (it is called a "christmas special" after all). --Edokter (Talk) 00:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the Date to December 2007 which is the official line by the BBC here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/07/02/46771.shtml - unfortunately I don't know how to put Refs on the page so can someone insert this and put a note on my Talkpage to tell me how to put refs in please. Kelpin 08:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Added a citation Stephenb (Talk) 10:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

'Utopia'; 'The Sound Of Drums'; 'Last Of The Time Lords' = 3-parter

The BBC has confirmed that the last three stories of Doctor Who: Series 3 — 'Utopia', 'The Sound Of Drums', and 'Last Of The Time Lords' — together form a three-part story, and the 191st Doctor Who serial. They are the first three-parter in the revived series. The 2007 Christmas Special is the 192nd serial. Let's keep it that way on the table, yes? I'm sure whoever changed it did so with good intentions, but I thought I'd post this here so that we're all clear. Catalina 123 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Where has it been confirmed? --OZ OO (Can't you hear them?) 08:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

On the Totally Doctor Who episode for "Utopia". If you look on the Utopia Wikipedia article under the subheading 'Production and pre-broadcast publicity', the third point is: "This episode was announced to be the first of a three-part story in Totally Doctor Who, broadcast the day before. Prior to this, only the following two instalments had been linked.". Catalina 123 09:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the Totally Doctor Who episode, but from what I've heard, that was an off-hand comment by someone, ie, not at all official. Sort of like how J. K. Rowling once claimed that Harry Potter books six and seven were like two halves of a single book... that's obviously not LITERALLY true. The picture gallery on the BBC website groups Utopia separately from the two-part finale. That's two official sources, both of them of dubious reliability, each saying something different. Consider also the fact that the final two episodes have their own director, and the third-to-last episode has another. Finally, it's fairly clear after watching the episodes in question that there are two distinct (but closely connected) stories. As has been said before, The Keeper of Traken and Logopolis are similarly connected, and yet they are also very clearly distinct. So, we are not, as you say, "all clear," and I think we need to come to some sort of a definite consensus.Dirk Amoeba 01:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't want to give too much away, but it is a three parter. DonQuixote 14:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it, and I don't see any conclusive evidence of that. Dirk Amoeba 20:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, "skies are made of diamonds"? I wouldn't have realised it was a three-parter until the end, even if it switches locations. Alientraveller 20:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...yeah, there's that bit where the Master/the Toclafane explains everything to the Doctor/Martha. Last a few minutes that scene. DonQuixote 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought "TO BE CONTINUED...." appearing before the end credits was enough evidence on its own that "Utopia" forms part of a multipart story! -- Arwel (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

'Utopia' is grouped seperately from 'The Sound of Drums' and 'Last of the Time Lords' in the picture gallery on the BBC Doctor Who website because of the different location and characters. Catalina 123 16:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because they didn't want to give away the ending Utopia. Alientraveller 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A new piece of Series 4 controversy

The Series 4 section has started an edit war. An attempt to expand this section has been disapproved of on multiple, contradictory grounds. Criticisms have ranged from accusations of the inclusion of speculative, unverifiable or original-research material to the claim that the addition is simply too obvious to deserve inclusion. Now, I have looked carefully at various Wikipedia policy pages, and I cannot see the basis of these arguments – and the very fact that opposite criticisms have been given illustrates the fact that neither argument is authoritative, as each is unconvincing to those experienced Wikipedians who advance the other. Let me explain why I am not doing anything wrong. Speculation is possible on any facts. “Facts that might cause speculation” I am including, because all facts are of such a kind. Since we would not wish to delete or empty all Wikipedia articles, objection to speculation-fuelling facts in itself has to be selective, and the basis for that selectivity I have not seen. The query as to why a one-off-recurring villain distinction is worth including, if not to fuel speculation, is as follows: because villains already revived enter in to both categories, but in one case unexpectedly, anyone who did speculate on the basis of the show’s history might easily be too cocksure that revived villains would be previously recurring ones. One sense in which some facts are worse than others for fuelling inappropriate speculation is in whether or not they prove that certain kinds of things have occurred that common fallacious reasoning would assume could not. I added this section to the talk page because I wish to act in good faith. I therefore assume for now that all of the Wikipedians who have taken one side or another against me are trying to make the article better, but I have not seen arguments that make any sense to me for why they should be true. In other words, I think they are wrong, but only because they may not have appreciated the points I have made in this paragraph, i.e. the reasons why I disagree with their views, which (again, in good faith) I imagine they are finding difficult if not impossible to see. 85.92.163.74 20:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I think that the suggestions that your edit is obvious and speculative are not inconsistent; I would say they're simply addressing different aspects of it. It is obvious that any villain that appeared in classic DW either appeared once or more than once. It is speculation that RTD's decision about reintroducing a villain could be affected by which of those two categories the villain fell into. (And I think for the article to make the distinction clearly implies that RTD might do so.) In other words, your addition is obvious in that it excludes no possibility, but speculative in that it suggests an unverifiable distinction between possibilities. I'm probably not explaining this very well, but I hope that makes some sense. EALacey 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the benefit of anyone following this the offending text, which I am temporarily excluding from the article, is: "Davies has not stated whether such villains would be ones that have appeared previously on multiple occasions (the remainders being the Black Guardian, Davros, the Ice Warriors, the Meddling Monk, the Rani, the Sea Devils, the Silurians and the Yeti) or on a single occasion (as had been the case with the revived Macra)." EALacey, you're clear enough, which is good, but imho wrong. Here's why. It says something in that it lets people know which villains have recurred. It is unspeculative in that it deobfuscates a likely tendency to take said distinction as more meaningful than it really is. I do think the two criticisms are inconsistent, in the sense that when used as basis for deletion they are criticisms of the whole, not of the parts. What's more, each point's applicability to a part makes the other one inapplicable to the whole, so neither is a good reason for deletion. My role is equivalent to giving the Government the evidence on which it decides the terror threat level, in that I anticipate the sort of distinctions likely to influence them, make the evidence more amenable to their ability to apply such distinctions if it is decided that is appropriate, but also indicate the limitations of such appropriateness. This approach may sound like a double-standard, but it really isn't, because people should be protected from ignorance just as much as from fallacies. In other words, the war on speculation has to be fought on two fronts. I sympathise with your concerns, I really do, but I want a good reason to take them seriously. Thanks for trying to give one - I really appreciate your recognising my desire to understand - but I emphasise try. 85.92.163.74 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an article listing Doctor Who Serials. It is not a news page or a discussion forum about which monsters RTD will or will not bring back in a series yet to be made. Discussion listing monsters that might be brought back is pure speculation Stephenb (Talk) 21:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the two criticisms I raised do, taken together, apply to the whole. The disputed passage makes the literal statement: "a classic villain brought back by RTD would have appeared either once or more than once". This is obvious but not speculative. It also implies: "RTD's decision to bring back a classic villain might depend on whether it had appeared once or more than once". This is speculative but not obvious. The disputed passage asserts nothing that is not either obvious or speculative, which is why it should be removed.

Your analogy seems beside the point; if you were an adviser to the government it would be your job to "anticipate the sort of distinctions likely to influence them", but it is not the job of Wikipedia to "anticipate the sort of distinctions likely to influence" RTD. If Gordon Brown made a public statement that he intended to "gather intelligence on specific terrorist organisations", it would not be appropriate for Wikipedia to remark, "Brown has not stated whether such organisations would be ones based in the United Kingdom or in other countries." EALacey 21:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Stephenb's comment is an interesting suggestion, but it's also problematic. Precedent proves what I mean by this. In the last few months, plenty has been included about series 3 that your objection would have been equally applicable/inapplicable to. The stability of a section on series 3 knowledge, not so much in what it said (because new things were found or hinted at all the time) but rather its uncontroversial existence, is testament to the fact that the community feels this sort of thing is appropriate. Sorry, but again I don't follow your thinking at all. As for EALAcey's stuff, which was added later, the whole-part disticntion does matter, in the same sense that the truth-values, probabilities and content of statements alone oes not say anything about a truth-function of several of them - and, as for his response referring to Gordon Brown, I am not discussing factors influencing him or RTD, rather the sort of people who are intrigued by it, just as the hypothetical comment you made about UK-based operations would be appealing not to him, and facts and intelligence about terrorists would be about terrorists but for the Government. His reasoning remains shoddy. 85.92.163.74 21:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the series 3 edits. You could list a hundred monsters RTD has yet to bring back, but what does that add to this article? Listing monsters that have yet to be brought back is not the place of this article, and has no place there. What don't you find clear about my reasoning? Stephenb (Talk) 21:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The series 3 edits followed everything that was revealed and postulated, and was very encyclopaediac in the way it did that: it did not claim what it could not justify, and it said which newspapers and people said what. It also showed, as time passed, what turned out to be right, and what turned out to be wrong. I have already told you what I have added to the article: see my response to EALAcey. That, as much as your speculation accusation, is an argument I have already responded to. I do not mind arguments against me. What i mind is repetition of responded-to arguments without an explanation of why the response was inadequate. What I don't follow in your reasoning is why on Earth what you say is right. I know that's not very helpful as an answer in itself, but I think it summarises more helpful things I have already included. 85.92.163.74 21:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. What you have said is correct: Davies has made no such statement, but that in itself is not encyclopaedic. He has also not stated whether the villains will be humanoid or not. He has not stated whether the villains will be red-orange in colour or not. He has not stated whether the villains will want to invade the Earth or not. Stating each of these facts adds nothing to the value of the article. Either X is true or X is not true adds very little. But you have't responded to my question - what does it add to the article? Specifically? Stephenb (Talk) 21:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am making sense. Yes, facts of the form X or not X are inappropriate, but facts of the form X, whence one of these options (in case you weren't sure what they were), or else not X, with not X being surprisingly possible but the consequence of X being not immediately obvious, is no tautology. That's where it differs from your facetious examples, although I do not mean that adjective derogatorily. It's like saying "Either an object orbiting the Sun is a planet, whence one of these, or it's a dwarf planet/comet, in which case there are too many options to list" being said in a context where everyone knows both are possible but many will assume the former is more likely and many others will ignore the latter completely, and the Macra case shows the importance of that. Indeed, there is the additional benefit of making clear which things are in the smaller class. you could easily be unsure, if you had not followed what happened last year, which category Pluto, or Xena, belonged in. I hope that this explains everything, but I have a sinking feeling that whether it does is less important than whether it does so in a certain way. 85.92.163.74 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Stating or implying which type of villain may appear is pure speculation on your part. You have no evidence for either. Your answer to my question "what does it add" is therefore "speculation about the type of villain that will likely appear". Stephenb (Talk) 22:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and besides which, why would the article listing the Doctor Who serials need to make clear which group was the smaller class? And why list them in this article? This is an article about the serials, not the frequency of previous Who villains. I suggest you find more coherent arguments. Stephenb (Talk) 22:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, in response to those, (btw please keep the ordering chronological), it's not speculation. It's deobfuscation of the data on which people build their speculation. I am as opposed to bad bases for speculation, even if speculation need not be bad - indeed, in case it could be better than bad under the right circumstances - as I am to publicising speculation on Wikipedia, which is not what i am doing. That's why I make no reference to probabilities. What I did was to anticipate what every sensible person will be an immediate consideration of speculators, then clarified that on the front of not only what the facts are, but also how much you can conclude from them. Had I included a statement that it would probably but not certainly be a recurring villain, that would have been speculative, but it would have made what I intended clearer to you. However, because I will not speculate in articles, I didn't do that. That point deals with your argument in your second non-chronological addition immediately above. In fact, it deals with every single argument I have seen. My arguments are the only coherent ones here! Thank you for your consequently bad suggestion, but I have a suggestion for you: you are biting a newbie - a newbie who happens to have a better case than you were expecting. Unfortunately, it seems you have made your presumptions before reading this talk page such that you will not let them be falsified in your mind. At the very least, I have a tenable case here. 85.92.163.74 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you "deobfuscating" by starting what Russell T. Davies has not said? You could equally say that, as I said above in my "facetious" examples that he has not stated whether the villains will be humanoid or not. That's also "deobfuscation" by your criterion. But it's not "deobfuscating" anything, it's just an excuse for you to add a list of villains that have appeared more than once. It has not clarified the data in any way: nobody reading your addition gains anything - they know nothing more about what villains will be returning, just what villains are available. If it's not a tautology then it's implying something that is speculation on your part, that is, which villains you think are more likely to return, of which there is no knowledge and no references you have cited. It has no place in the article, and no, you have no tenable case. And no, I'm not "biting a newbie", this is the argument I would be making towards anyone who would have made such a case as yours. Neither have I made presumptions before reading this page. I'm tired of this game. Come back when you have a clear, concise argument that sounds a little less like a bad Russell Brand impersonation! Stephenb (Talk) 22:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My criterion is subtler than you think: I call that either misunderstanding or a straw man. My point is that people who have a natural tendency to speculate are especially vulnerable to a particular fallacy that the Macra undermined. If anyone commits a fallacy of assuming red-orange villains will not appear, it is at least not a fallacy the past warns against by precedent. Hence, teh tautology-speculation taxonomy is a false dilemma. "It has no place in the article, and no, you have no tenable case." Well, maybe your argument can justify that, but not yet. Both division between Wikipedians and the fact that another Wikipedian expanded my deobfuscation by adding the Sontarans - seeing my crime as being one of error, not the sort you think it is - shows that my case, even if it untenable, has support not from me. Now, I grant you three concessions. On the bite a newbie front, I may not understand its meaning the way you do. I'm not accusing you of treating me differently because of it; I'm suggesting you are failing to remember a duty of care. Secondly, I have no idea what Russell Brand says, so i can't know whether or not changes in my arguments better please you on that front. Thirdly, the argument's difficulty in being made clear or concise seems to stem from the difficulty in explaining it the first time round, so maybe this is the best I can do: showing that certain types of reasoning are imperfect while also giving the evidence they need even when done properly is not tantamount to espousing such reasoning. The former does have a role in this encyclopaedia, because it should include everything its community has not seen fit to forbid. That's how, as far as I understand it, an encyclopaedia is meant to work, especially Wikipedia, because it is not paper. Now if you are "tired of this game", I'll have to accept that. EALacey has not suffered the same upset from me you have, so maybe he can help me to see the error of my ways or the lack thereof in your absence. I wish you good luck whatever your decision, but now I really do need to get to bed! 85.92.163.74 22:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. My point is that people who have a natural tendency to speculate are especially vulnerable to a particular fallacy that the Macra undermined. - so your point in adding the sentence you added is to warn speculative people that is *might* not be a villain that has appeared multiple times, as the Macra wasn't? Well, as I've made clear before, your statements are correct, but don't add anything to the article per se. I see no evidence that the article leads people to the belief that it will be a villain that has appeared multiple times, nor any need for the article to stop people speculating, so long as it is not in the article itself. It is not the purpose of the article to guide people's speculations one way or another, and adding the sentence simply to point out that it might be a one-time villain, which I *think* is at the heart of your point, is speculation in itself. Oh, and I have no "duty of care" to you, you seem perfectly capable of arguing for yourself, if in a rather obscure and somewhat archaic fashion (hence the Russell Brand reference). Good night! Stephenb (Talk) 23:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe "duty of care" isn't quite the right phrase. Your argument from lack of evidence that people are that stupid does make a lot more sense to me than the ones you had before. Well, I won't keep pestering people with that text. Maybe it would be best to remove this whole part of the talk page altogether - no-one likes it. 85.92.163.74 13:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I note Stephenb has deleted the article's reference to this part of the talk page. Since I think it is now getting enough attention for a possible resolution to occur - even if not enough of anything else - I think that change is a good idea. In fact, I had planned my self to do it, although not quite that quickly. That was because I had not imagined how quickly this discussion would happen. Indeed, I nearly had an edit conflict on it, which is a good sign! Stephenb, I know that so far your edits to the article have met with some alteration by me today, but I just want you to know that won't happen for this one. That said, let's resume the main discussion of this section. 85.92.163.74 22:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not allowed to link to any talk page from articles. That is why it was deleted. --Edokter (Talk) 09:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. 85.92.163.74 13:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Call this point irrelevant if you must, a charge that has been thrown about a lot, but for the next few hours I won't respond to anything because, given my time zone, I'm going to bed. 85.92.163.74 22:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Section break

85.92.163.74, you have already broken 3RR, I (and others) could have easily reported you there, which would have resulted in a block. This article's purpose is mainly to list all episodes of Doctor Who, whith some information relevant to the episodes/seasons. The information you keep adding are simply not relevant! And as Stephenb already mentioned, one could fill the entire wiki with stuff that RTD didn't state. What hasn't been stated cannot be sourced; that breaks Verifyability. Adding a list of villains that have not appeared is irrelevant to this article (it's a list of episodes), and it appears as speculation and that breaks No Original Research.

You should really ask yourself what this article gains with adding this information. In my opinion, it doesn't add anything, and other editors think the same. It is good that you finally discuss it at the talk page; that is where consensus is made, which is the main principle foundation of how Wikipedia works. However, edit warring as you did is disruptive, and can get you blocked. Basic rule is: if someone doesn't like you edits, discuss first and work out consensus. Now I'm off to bed as well... --Edokter (Talk) 00:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually not too fond of home-brewed TOCs. First, they do not auto-populate, so updating sections breaks the links. I know the standard TOC is way oversized, but it can be condensed to show only level 2 section; I don't see the point in linking to each season/serial anyway, it only clutters the TOC. I'm going to put the condenced (and automatically populating) TOC in for now. Please discuss which version you prefer before blanket reverting. --Edokter (Talk) 19:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the standard TOC works fine or the one with The Doctor and Seasons across from it nit the one with the Seasons below th Doctor. ≈ Seraph 20:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Television, Films and Webcasts

Recent edits to Other stories, seem to have gone outside the article's brief. It was my understanding this list was supposed to focus on the televised series, yet we now have both Dalek films (neither of which was produced by the BBC, by the way) plus every webcast known to man. Perhaps we ought to discuss what this article is for? Mark H Wilkinson 10:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think other stories have their place here (for lack of a better place), but need to be better categorized, and not too elaborate. --Edokter (Talk) 10:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats meant to be added

Who ever keeps deleting the text for the movie please stop it. It's not called "Doctor Who", it's called "The Movie" and the Code for it is "TVM". It even says that on the official Doctor Who website. Also "Attack of the Graske" is meant to be listed on the episode guide. It may be an interactive episode but its meant to be there, right under "The Christmas Invasion". As it says on the official Doctor Who website, okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VitasV (talk • contribs)

The BBC site refers to it as "The TV Movie" as a way to distinguish it from the other episodes of the television series, which also come under the banner "Doctor Who". But it remains the case that the TVM is titled "Doctor Who", as evidenced by the opening titles, the book Doctor Who: Regeneration written by producer Philip Segal etc. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Where on the official website does it say AotG comes right after TCI?--OZ OO (What?) 12:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere that I can see. It's currently available in the games section, though.[3] --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 12:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to see some (online) reference for these production codes. (Incidentally, I'd really like to know where the other codes and serial numbers come from.) --Edokter (Talk) 12:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The alphabet system used by the original series is well documented in a number of reference works (Lofficier springs to mind). The #season.#episode system is as in DWM, and I assume it's handed to them by the production office (it's seems almost fairly universal system, these days). --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 12:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It is generally accepted by most fans that the interactive episode 'Attack of the Graske' is not canon. The wikipedia article for the episode discusses its dubious canonicity, as it does with the books. Catalina 123 21:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Planet of the Ood"

Can we have some confirmation of this? --Edokter (Talk) 18:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, its rubbish.--Wiggstar69 22:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thought so... removed. --Edokter (Talk) 23:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure it is rubbish, guys - it is being discussed at OG by someone who apparently has an early copy of the latest DWM (and is quoting quite believably) Stephenb (Talk) 07:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is in the new Doctor Who Magazine. I'm looking at it right now. 86.151.231.195 07:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide the page number so someone else can verify this? Sorry to be sceptical but there is no mention of this at http://www.drwho-online.co.uk/ and they've reviewed the magazine that's cited. Thanks. Kelpin 07:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed? I can only see the preview on the site, which is provided by DWM Stephenb (Talk) 07:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you're right - I only speed read it for mention of Planet of Ood. Kelpin 08:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait until the magazine has come out, at the moment its just speculation.--Wiggstar69 08:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but not necessarily rubbish :-) Stephenb (Talk) 08:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

BBC news came through for us. I've added a sourced note. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, its sourced now, (wish I hadn't said it was rubbish)...Wiggstar69 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look on the official Doctor Who website, there is now an article on the episode. Here it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/07/25/47491.shtml Do you think Planet of the Ood should have its own article and a place on the list of Doctor Who serials? Of course if it were to be added to the list, we wouldn't be able to state the serial number, episode code, writer, director or air date, and we don't know if it's a one-off or multi-parter. We would only be able to have the episode title there as a link. Catalina 123 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, sorry, I've just noticed we already have mention of 'Planet of the Ood'. :) Catalina 123 21:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

TVM production code

Right, I've hauled out TVM producer Philip Segal's book on the making of the film, Doctor Who: Regeneration, and right at the back is the BBC Production number: 50/LDX071Y/01X 1996. Does this mean anything to anyone? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Google doesn't give many results, but it seems like a couple of other sites use it as production code. Personally, I've never seen it before... Davhorn 09:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's tucked away among all the minor production details that most people (including me) don't bother to read. (There's even a minute-by-minute breakdown of the incidental music.) I brought this up because there's been a bit of a discussion over what production code to use, if any. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Since VitasV (finally!) came up with a source actually stating a production code, I'm willing to accept TVM, as the BBC at least has some authority when it come to Doctor Who. Should it matter if it was used during production or assigned post-production? --Edokter (Talk) 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There's more discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who Stephenb (Talk) 11:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Episodes

What is the total number of DW episodes?--Moonlight Mile 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out the main article! Davhorn 11:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Date nightmare

We should have a common date formatting established, especially the dates in the "7-15 February" format. The dates are auto-formatted according to the Date/time setting your preferences, which gives strange results like "7-February 15" in some cases. This happens when preferenceas are set as [month day year]. While it some cases the date is hard-formatted using piped links, that defeates the auto-formatting functionality. I'd like to expand all dates in full. Any input before I try to fix the whole mess? — Edokter • Talk • 11:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If the source has [[7 February|7]]-[[February 15|15 February]] I think it works. I've used that on some things that are displayed as above, and it has worked. StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I just tried that on a couple of things like that, and it works for my preference. Stuart DD _{contributions} 07:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who stories?

Is it worth retitling this article? Strictly speaking, it's no longer a list of serials. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 22:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

List of doctor who stories already redirects to this article, but because it's lower case(!) I've tagged it CSD-G6. Then there are List of Doctor Who episodes (my preference for new title), Doctor Who episodes and Doctor Who serials (but not Doctor Who stories). — Edokter • Talk • 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines on redirects allow for variant capitalisation redirects for purposes which I think apply to List of doctor who stories. That said, could you clarify whether your answer means it's not worth a retitle? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 23:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The allowed variants only apply if a page with the correct capitalisation exists. But since it doesn't, a link to the correctly capitalised page doesn't even work (but a lower case link to a capitalized page does work), that's why I tagged it. Having said that, I would consider a move to List of Doctor Who episodes a better choice; "Stories" doesn't have the right ring to it. It might if it it included all books and such, but this article only lists TV episodes/serials. — Edokter • Talk • 23:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not stuck on List of Doctor Who stories. I just thought it made for a more interesting heading than "Rename the article". --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 23:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I think List of Doctor Who episodes fits the article slightly better, but I'm also happy leaving it at List of Doctor Who serials. But overal I think it's not a pressing matter. — Edokter • Talk • 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Coming back to this old topic: how about List of Doctor Who television stories? That would include both episodes and serials, and yet allows for the fact that the list doesn't include every episode title from the early Hartnell years. I think it's been proposed before, but I can't remember what the arguments against it were. (Too cumbersome?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who Series Four

I've rewritten the article titled above, and then merged it into the appropriate section of this article. The source is the BBC Doctor Who website. Although I've done my best to fit this into the existing text, my apologies for any inadvertent duplication or lapse of formatting. Please proof this change and fix as appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done some copy-editing. — Edokter • Talk • 23:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Davros & Kingsley

Regarding The Sun's story about Sir Ben Kingsley/Davros: do we include or not? Wiggstar69 seems against it. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 22:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as we make clear that the Sun in not a reliable source and the fact was not confirmed by the BBC or any other source (which was made clear), I don't have a problem with including it. — Edokter • Talk • 23:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't like to include anything unconfirmed, its an encyclopedia, I feel the information should always be 100% reliable, if the BBC confirmed it, it would be another matter.--Wiggstar69 08:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If the only source we have for something is a tabloid gossip rag, we shouldn't report it. --Tony Sidaway 08:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I see Tony Sidaway's point, but my view is that it should go in. The Sun, as much as I share your view of it, is the biggest-selling paper in the country, may God have mercy on us all, besides which the nature of tabloid journalism is such that stories are often unearthed by one paper alone - subsequent reporting often draws on the original report rather than representing separate, independent research. The story does concern a major actor and a major Doctor Who icon, so if nothing else its inclusion supports the assertions of Doctor Who's cultural importance. The grounds given for excluding it are less convincing than those in favour of inclusion. Peeper 13:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The program's cultural importance is not in doubt, and I fail to see how an article in that rag can make any difference to that one way or the other. The same newspaper prints tripe about pop stars, feckless fashion models and gormless game show contestants, nearly all of whom are destined for merciful obscurity within a couple of years. Until we have a reliable source for the casting of Ben Kingsley, the rumor should be kept out of this encyclopedia simply because we have, or aspire to, standards much higher than The Sun's. --Tony Sidaway 13:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that persuades me. Nicely done. The only caution I have is that we must not be snobby about a particular publication on cultural grounds. There is also a subtle difference between noting that the Sun reported this, and reporting it ourselves with the Sun as a source. While you may consider the Sun lowbrow tripe, just because it reports on Big Brother evictees does not mean that all its reporting is invalid. Also, we can't anticipate whether people will or will not fade into obscurity in the future. So as long as the judgements are being made on the specific facts in front of us, I'm happy. That said, I now think that mention of this Sun report belongs more properly in the cultural references section of Doctor Who than here - because the fact of its being reported is, arguably, significant, while the content of the report is not (on the basis that its reliability is questionable). Peeper 13:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Length of 2005 & on episodes

(Apologies if this has been asked before, I looked but didn't see it in the archives or above.) According to the article here, the new episodes are all 45 minutes long. If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that they're approximately 45 minutes long? --Umrguy42 01:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do people expect television episodes to be uniformly the exact same length? If somebody told me a series consisted of 22 42-minute episodes, for example, I think I'd expect 22 episodes which were in the region of 42 minutes each. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 05:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I second that. If we start to get pernickety about episode lengths, it'll only end in discussions about minutes and seconds and that's not fun. Peeper 12:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be extremely pernickity. And after all, were ALL the episdoes in the classic series exactly 25 mins? StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode two of The Ultimate Foe was thirty minutes long. Will ^(talk) 21:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent IP changes

Re recent additions to the article: is the extra info coming from DWM? I can't find an extra-Wikipedia source online. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Series 5 for 2010, specials in 2009

News about series 5: given that we're not yet up to listing series 4 episodes yet, how much of the latest news should we add here? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I took it out of the article because it was unsourced - but as its on the BBC website I'd say it should go in.Kelpin 14:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--Wiggstar69 14:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--VitasV 4/9/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by VitasV (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As do I. I'm just not sure it needs to be mentioned twice in the same section. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We could create a "beyond series 4" section containing the new information for series 5 etc. StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bank holiday specials?

Is there any source to confirm they're on at bank holidays? I'm a bit curious about that... Xdt 22:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the source, so no, it doesn't specify dates for the specials. Davhorn 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaced the current ref with your source. — Edokter • Talk • 23:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I just checked that source, and it doesn't specify that the specials are "Bank Holiday" specials, so I've removed "Bank Holiday". StuartDD ( t • c ) 14:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"In 2009, Doctor Who will return with three specials starring David Tennant, with Head Writer, Russell T Davies."
"confirm not only three exciting specials for 2009"
- no reference to bank holiday. StuartDD ( t • c ) 14:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Times Online (Tennant takes a break...): "He has agreed to film three extended bank holiday specials to keep fan’s happy during 2009." Please check all references before deleting any information again. — Edokter • Talk • 14:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Series 4 blocks

Does someone have the source for the production blocks? Currently for blocks 3/4 it has "1 episode", but I seem to recall it stating that the episodes filmed would be single episodes, not that only one episode would be filmed. StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Planet of The Ood

Was anyone aware we had an article of the above title? I've redirected it here for the time being, but if anyone thinks more could or should be done with it, at least you now know about it. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew we had it, but I thought it redirected here already. I don't think we know enough about it to warrant a separate article. StuartDD ( t • c ) 16:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just been checking and it's a new one, created earlier this month. The older version didn't capitalise the "the". --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If we have "Planet of the Ood", doesn't that qualify "Planet of The Ood" for speedy deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartDD (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That would fall under housekeeping speedies. Tagged with {{db-g6}}. — Edokter • Talk • 14:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Starting the series 4 table

An unknown IP tried to start the series 4 table (although it cam out wrong). I reverted it because I wasn't sure if we has a source for Planet of the Ood being the second episode. If this IS confirmed, should we start the table? StuartDD ( t • c ) 16:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The BBC released that title in August[4] and it's also referenced in an issue of DWM. I don't know that one title is worth starting the table for, but maybe others are more certain? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean the title, I meant the title being "episode 2", as that was where it was put in the table. StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that'll teach me to speed read. No, I don't know that that's been confirmed for second episode. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 17:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Planet of the Ood/ agatha Christie episode

An IP put these in as episodes 2/3 is the production block. Do we have a source for these being episodes 2 and 3 of the series? StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I say revert. — Edokter • Talk • 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of the stuff in that production block is simply made up with references to DWM which as far as i can recall hasn't really said much about it.--Wiggstar69 12:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

91.105.71.216 also keeps putting in episode numbers and a comlete guest list, citing "DWM p4". Can anyone else confirm this? I don't have a subscription, so I can't be sure. — Edokter • Talk • 18:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, DWM 387 just hit the shelves. — Edokter • Talk • 18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on that IP's talk page asking for the issue of DW magazine. StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Children in need special 2007

if the Children in need special is confirmed for November this year how come nobody has put it up?--Wiggstar69 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its been confirmed. I think all we have is Sun speculation. I will happily be proved wrong, though. --OZ OO (What?) 12:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Speculation which was 'neither confirmed nor denied' in the latest DWM DavidFarmbrough 13:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Rome episode

Someone changed "Rome Episode" to Pompeii episode, but it was changed becasue of no source. Doesn't this source - here - state that the Pompeii episode is the Rome episode? StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It does. Davhorn 17:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pompeii

Sorry if this is a double post, but the Pompeii details still aren't in the article; I'm afraid I don't have time to do it myself.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 17:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

we have this: The Doctor and Donna will also visit Pompeii in 79AD, on the eve of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. Guest stars featuring in this episode include Peter Capaldi playing Caecillius, Phil Davis as Lucius and Tracey Childs as Metella. This episode featured one week of filming at the Cinecittà studio in Rome. in the article

StuartDD ( t • c ) 18:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourced and all?--Porcupine (prickle me!) 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the source is given beside it - bottom of Guest Stars section. StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Probally needs some more come to that. StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Caecilius and Metella were characters in my Latin textbook at school! C was a real person, but I think M was just in the textbook.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 09:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean this one?--OZ OO (What?) 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He was a real person who lived on Stabian street, but his wife Metella, son Quintus, cook Grumio and slave Clemens were all fictitious. I nearly cried at the end of Year 7 when he died from Vesuvius!!--Porcupine (prickle me!) 16:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And I forgot Melissa the domina (slave-girl). But I gave it up at the end of Y8, so I missed the next three years' plot by Salvius to murder Quintus' friend King Cogidubnus!!--Porcupine (prickle me!) 18:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Loathe as I am to nitpick... but Melissa was indeed the slave-girl, BUT the Latin word is ancilla; Metella was the domina (mistress). A Level Latin has cursed me for ever!!!! FOR EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cough. - NP Chilla 23:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would've nitpicked earlier - damn you, Adeste fidelis! (the only Latin song I ever knew). Of course, there is the ever increasing in popular culture latin-originated word dominatrix, which, knowing RTD, will probably be in the episode. Will ^(talk) 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Billie Piper rumour

the News of the world newspaper has said Billie Piper will return as Rose Tyler for 3 episodes of the next series--Lerdthenerd 09:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave that out until get get official confirmation. StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree lets leave it until we get a better source, the bbc website doesn't say anything on Billie Piper yet.--Lerdthenerd 09:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Sontarans have been confirmed by the BBC

BEHOLD!!!!! How should we phrase this in the article?? - NP Chilla 19:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's already in there; it just says that they're appearing. They're awful, though - I hope they're not the Big Bad that RTD's mentioned!--Porcupine (prickle me!) 07:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Daily Star

[5] [6] Is it worth putting this material into the article, not as a reliable piece of info, but just to note the fact that it was said?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like speculation to me. If we are not treating it as reliable, then there is not much point in having it. An encyclopedia should not have speculation. It would be better to get an official source for it. StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, we have noted rumours before, as rumours. As in, "The Daily Star reported on the Xth of Quatember that..." as opposed to "This episode will contain Davros^[2]". Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point, and we have had that sort of thing before, but putting something in as speculation in an encyclopedia is not a good idea. StuartDD ( t • c ) 08:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? It's not against the MoS. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Star is about as reliable as a tin foil hat's proof of aliens. Will ^(talk) 09:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the above conversation, and then reply again. We're not suggesting that it's reliable, we're suggesting that it's worth noting the fact that it suggested that info. Just like it's worth having all that election speculation in Gordon Brown etc. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean, they make the stuff up to fill the pages. Will ^(talk) 09:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that an unreliable source has made speculative, probably wildly inaccurate statements is surely not worth noting. The main reason for this is that not much notice is taken of such statements. --Tony Sidaway 09:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"we're suggesting that it's worth noting the fact that it suggested that info." - I wasn't. StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if it isn't reliable it isn't worth mentioning (sorry porcupine)--Wiggstar69 11:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait for the bbc website or the doctor who magazine to verify it before we add it to the article, i think they are better sources and besides this rumour sounds too good to be true.--Lerdthenerd 19:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing episodes

The Tramp has recently gone through the page changing "all missing" to "all x missing" (where x is the number of episodes). Do we really need the "x" in? Stuart DD _{contributions} 12:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

example here Stuart DD _{contributions} 12:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous. Davhorn 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Davhorn. -- Kjet 14:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them. Stuart DD _{contributions} 14:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The tramp has gone on a rampage again but Edokter has restored the article, what should i do? should i leave him a message or should we take this further--Lerdthenerd 08:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Drop him a message telling him about this discussion. Stuart DD _{contributions} 08:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

oops you've replied to him already, apart from that edit he has left the article alone for now--Lerdthenerd 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Sun is spreading rumours again

The Sun newspaper claims the 5th doctor Peter Davison is coming back to star along side the current doctor David Tennant in the children in need special, can someone clarify whether this is true or just a rumour.--Lerdthenerd 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's been around for a while. I don't think it's been confirmed - and as Last of the Time Lords looks to lead directly into Voyage of the Damned, it's probally not going to be an official story anyway. Stuart DD _{contributions} 20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be an official story, but not a part of the current continuum of the 10th Doctor. The story's also been on Yahoo TV, but I'm not sure how believable that is - plus they might have got it from The Sun anyways. -- Kjet 18:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should ignore it and ask people not to add it to the article until a better source confirms it.--Lerdthenerd 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"It might be an official story" - sorry, I'm not trying to start a debate over whether it is a story - I meant that IF the children in Need special happens, then it is unlightly to be like Doctor Who:Children in Need, it is more likely to be an "other story" since "Last of the Time Lords" looks to lead directly into "Voyage of the Damned". Stuart DD _{contributions} 08:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, I'm not debating that either, I just resented your use the word "official". It can be an official part of the Doctor Who continuum even if it doesn't take place chronologically - this is a series about time travel after all. ^_~ -- Kjet 13:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

you're right but we don't have a source yet to add it to the article, we should wait until the bbc offical website or DWM (Doctor Who Magazine) confirms this and the Billie Piper rumour. until then revert anyone who adds them to the article without a good source.--Lerdthenerd 13:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"this is a series about time travel after all." - good point. Stuart DD _{contributions} 13:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a series about time travel, it's a series about people - they just happen to use time travel as a device :) However I think it is quite reasonable for any CIN special not to be set between the last and next story but still retain a place in the overall series' continuity. DavidFarmbrough 09:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Davidson's confirmed according to the BBC Dr. Who Website--74.134.237.91 23:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sontarans

I'm just making sure here, but someone has put "Episodes 5-6 (Sontarans)". Does the DW magazine specify that it is both, and not just one? Stuart DD _{contributions} 08:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I hope to God it doesn't - I can't face a two-parter with those stupid aliens in it... --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been changed by Pdb781. I assume he's right. Stuart DD _{contributions} 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

he has just reverted it so i assume we will have to wait until we find a good source--Lerdthenerd 08:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Blues"

86.142.141.176 (talk · contribs) has added the title Blues for episode one [7] using this as a source. Does this qualify as a reliable source? --OZ OO (What?) 16:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure. I know, though, that fake titles have been used in casting calls before. (though I'd wait until the title appears in DWM) Will ^(talk) 16:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it doesn't meet the standards for a reliable source on Wikipedia, per Will's concern about fake titles and the fact that actors have been known to lie on their resumes before. Let's wait for a better source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait till we get official confirmation. I doubt this counts as a reliable source. Stuart DD _{contributions} 19:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)