Talk:Doctor Who series 10

Missy's return

Missy's actress Michelle Gomez confirming she's returning for this series (hasn't said whether it's the 2016 Christmas special or the 2017 run of episodes) - https://twitter.com/News_Doctor_Who/status/737008812087971840

2A02:C7D:877:D800:3175:8001:8F05:C85A (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That's posted from an unverified account, and hence cannot be used as a source. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Matt Lucas

@Intyre: Rather than reverting again I thought it'd be best to bring it here. Neither of the new sources state that he will have a main role in this series. "Will be seen regularly" could mean anything, and is up to editor interpretation, which is considered WP:OR. Not even the official post from BBC states that he'll be in a main role, and they are far more reliable - if they're not mentioning it, then it should be left as-is. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry it took me long to answer. "Will be seen regularly" sounds rather unambiguous, if he was a recurring character then it would be stated that way [1]. I might as well ask where did you get the word "recurring" from since the sources didn't state it. As for sources they are from BBC Worldwide site, just as official as those from BBC site. In addition there are numerous statements that Lucas is not just joining Doctor Who or the cast in order to appear now and then, but specifically joins the Doctor and Bill in the TARDIS for adventures in time in space:

“Delighted and slightly amazed to be welcoming Matt Lucas back on to the TARDIS - and this time it’s not just for Christmas, he’s sticking around. One of the greatest comedy talents on planet Earth is being unleashed on all of time and space.” [2]

The lovable character will be seen regularly in Series 10, starting from the first episode!

It will also star Peter Capaldi as The Twelfth Doctor and Pearl Mackie as the new companion Bill, alongside Matt, he told the BBC: “I’m chuffed to bits that Nardole is returning to the TARDIS for some more adventures.” [3]

As we discovered earlier this week, actor Matt Lucas is joining Team TARDIS for Doctor Who Series 10.

Doctor Who will return in December 2016 with a Christmas Special, followed by the new series starring Peter Capaldi, Pearl Mackie and Matt Lucas in 2017. [4] (And look at the picture)

Matt Lucas is the Doctor's new companion!

The comedian and actor, who appeared in last year's Christmas special, will reprise the role of Nardole throughout the next series of Doctor Who, joining Peter Capaldi's Doctor and new companion Pearl Mackie aboard the TARDIS.

Welcome aboard the TARDIS, Matt Lucas! [5]

It's pretty clear that he will be a companion, but you won't get that title from beebs right now because Pearl is being promoted as full-time companion, there's no need to overshadow her, and they not tend to promote secondary companions in the first place. And I can't remember anyone in the revived series who would be travelling in the TARDIS for a while and not considered as a companion. Intyre (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

He shouldn't go in the infobox under "starring" until he gets star billing. DonQuixote (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

All of that bold (only a few sourced), and not one says that he's going to be main cast. Wait for any official BBC announcement; many characters have been in the TARDIS multiple times, and have not been considered a companion - this has been deemed before to be WP:OR, basing their status on this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, entirely scanned over this talk page section before editing. Matt's been consistently described as appearing regularly, as per the quotations above; that's definitely enough to warrant a mention in the lead - currently he's relegated to one brief mention alongside a guest star - and in my opinion strong enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox also. The standard is regular or recurring = main or guest, and Matt's regular and thus - as of now - sources suggest he is a main character. If we wait for a source to directly describe him as "main" we could be waiting forever; "regular" is a synonym for "main" in this context, however, and I don't think it's OR to assert that.

Compare Matt's announcement with that of Samuel Anderson as Danny two years back: [6]. Danny is directly described as "recurring", despite the fanfare of the announcement - Matt has quite clearly been given a role considered to be more major than Samuel's, i.e. more than a recurring character, and so I think the article should reflect that.

Lastly, to be clear, I am not saying we should describe Nardole as a companion. That's a distinct dramatic role that has not been reliably attached to this character as yet - but not necessarily being a companion does not mean he can't be described as a "star" of the series. U-Mos (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You missed one of them, which is pretty solid confirmation: "starring Peter Capaldi, Pearl Mackie and Matt Lucas". But none of the other quoted parts confirm that status explicitly and unambiguously – if it weren't for that, it would still be WP:OR. Even if "regular" is the same thing as "main", "seen regularly" is not necessarily the same thing as "regular". But that's all moot because we have the source explicitly saying "starring". nyuszika7h (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

What we have is only one source stating it that is not directly from the BBC, when we have a lot more that state otherwise. The discussion about whether the last two/three episodes of Series 9 being single/multi-parters was mostly waged over how many sources stated what they were. We should either wait for an official source from the BBC that states that he is starring, or for the opening credits of the first episode. If he is credited, then he's starring. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see there are multiple sources. The others don't explicitly refute the claim, but I guess it's best to wait for a better source. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, looks like we've got a confirmation. In this video from the official DW YouTube channel it was specifically said Nardole is a companion. Intyre (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who: The Fan Show. Barely official by any standard. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It's made by the BBC. It's a documental show similar to Confidential and Extra, only their main subject is Doctor Who fandom instead of cast and crew on set, hence the title. Intyre (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Episodes 3 and 4

Regarding my edit which has been reverted: 1. Sarah Dollard and Mike Bartlett are writing Episodes 3 and 4 respectively. It's in the new issue of DWM (Doctor Who Magazine - 501). If that isn't proof then I don't know what is. 2. Lawrence Gough and Bill Anderson are directors for Series 10. 3. Bill Anderson is directing Episodes 3 and 4 as seen on Pearls CV. "2016, Television, Bill, DR WHO SERIES 10, BBC, Lawrence Gough Bill Anderson Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4" -- Basic logic dictates that by blocks "episodes" is meant.

So yeah. Pearl's CV and DWM are the sources to prove this. If there is some difficulty in who's directing what - then leave that. DWM confirms Sarah Dollard and Mike Bartlett are Episodes 3 and 4 and that this is Block 2 - which doesn't require much mental cognition to work out that this is Bill Anderson as seen on Pearl's CV :)

Badgerdog2 (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocks are very different to episodes. Hence, it does not explicitly state that he is directing episodes 3 and 4. DWM is a fair enough source. Also, do try to leave the snarkiness at the login page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Story Numbers

There is no need to put TBA in the story column for episodes 2-4, they have different writers, they weren't announced as two-parters, there will only be two two-parters max, most likely only one (just the finale, like in Series 8), plus episode 2 and 3 are produced in different blocks. The episodes are definitely not two-parters, there is no reason not to list the story numbers. Fan4Life (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. You need to cite a reliable source verifying any of that--especially since there have been cases where the above has been false (see The Dalek Masterplan for example). DonQuixote (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. This is entirely original research. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous, it isn't original research, it is using facts. Fan4Life (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"Utopia" and "The Sound of Drums"/"The Last of the Time Lords" were produced in different blocks, and those episodes are regarded as a three-parter. TedEdwards (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Saying that A is true because of B without referring to a reliable source is original research--even if you are using fact. The "because" part is the original research part. DonQuixote (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Christmas Special Page

By some weird coincidence, I just looked through the edit history of "The Husbands of River Song" and discovered that that episode page was opened on 12 November 2015. It's now 12 November 2016 - should the page for "The Return of Doctor Mysterio" be created/linked? There should be just enough information in terms of cast members, crew etc. to open a proper page - as well as a poster. 109.151.163.193 (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Only if there is enough production information (not just a cast list and poster), then the article should definitely be created. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/2016-christmas-special-the-return-of-doctor-mysterio-81133.htm

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-11-03/sneak-preview-of-the-doctor-who-christmas-special-to-be-revealed-during-children-in-need

http://www.anglotopia.net/british-entertainment/brit-tv/bbc/doctor-whoooligan-noel-clarke-talks-return-doctor-mysterio-class-power-daleks/

http://www.movienewsguide.com/doctor-christmas-special-2016/306800

Some links that various info could be salvaged and prised from for now. I expect more news to follow in the next week or (as is usually the case) but there should be enough here for now (and for the public to view the page just to have an overview of all information released so far). Probably best to see how it goes. 109.151.163.193 (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Only the first two are reliable sources. And sources are all well and good, but a draft needs to be written up to make sure that there's enough content to make an article valid. Alex|The|Whovian^? 19:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Does the article have enough information now? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Return_of_Doctor_Mysterio&redirect=no BlueBlue11 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No. It only has two sections, Filming and Cast notes. Most definitely not enough. Realistically, per every other television series, the article shouldn't exist until after it has aired. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"The Husbands of River Song" only needed the Filming and Broadcast sections before it became its own article. BlueBlue11 (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, then, it shouldn't have been created so early. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Then, unless the rules have changed since series 9, that indicates that your vision of when articles should be created is flimsy at best. BlueBlue11 (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel as if the page should be created now, simply for convenience. Once it's up, running and public, it will grow with whatever information individuals find. Also, is AlexTheWhovian the boss of all this or something? This isn't a dig - I'm genuinely curious. Everyone seems to come to you for questions, you seem to be everywhere on all these related pages and you seem to have the final say on most things. 109.151.161.213 (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The best way to do that would be to create a draft, then move it to the article mainspace once it's valid. I'm not any sort of boss, nor do I own anything here - I have simply been editing Wikipedia long enough to know the guidelines and policies that dictate the creation of articles and their content, especially television-based ones. As a major contributor to the Television WikiProject, and as a massive personal fan of Doctor Who, it's why I'm seen around here a lot. And I "have the final say" on far less than those that I do. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Right so if you don't have the final say then someone can make the article without you reverting it back again? BlueBlue11 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

If it goes against consensus, then it'll probably be turned into a redirect. DonQuixote (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, I don't have the final say. I'm just another editor. If there is consensus to create the article, go for it. Else, create the article in the draft namespace first. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

If you take away the "Plot" section from "The Husbands of River Song" page, the page would have pretty much the same amount of information. No reason not to open it now. I have added some stuff about broadcast details and will open the page now. 109.151.161.213 (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it has a lot more. THoRS has Production, Broadcast, Reception and Home media. As much of this is unavailable before the episode has aired, this is why episode pages are not created until after the episode has aired for almost every television series. Doctor Who should be no exception. If you want more editors to back up my opinion, I can request for the opinions of other contributors of the Television WikiProject, to see if it meets the general notability guide. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)