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

Ninth Doctor and Tenth Doctor episode titles

Just a heads up. I've noticed that the Ninth Doctor episode titles and the Tenth Doctor episode titles for Series 4 and the specials have been replaced with silly names. It appears that this has been the case since 27 December 2014, which appears to be around the time of a major re-formatting of the page. Just thought it was strange that it hasn't been spotted in almost 12 months. Nothing else appears to have been discombobulated as far as I can see. GeneralClaudius (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think they're all fixed now. Ratemonth (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@GeneralClaudius: Huh? A year? You mean today? The edits were only just implemented today, as per Special:Diff/695669272 and Special:Contributions/85.150.100.188. Alex|The|Whovian 23:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request: The Husbands of River Song

"The Husbands of River Song" is included in the Series 9 boxset[1], and therefore should be listed under Series 9. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's well documented that series 9 only has 12 episodes--all of which has aired. This goes all the way back to the first Christmas special which was not part of series 1 or series 2 but was included in the series 2 box set. DonQuixote (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well actually, including "Last Christmas" Series 9 has 13 episodes. Christmas specials are grouped with the series they were released on DVD/Blu-ray with, hence the majority of Christmas specials are listed under the following series. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Technically, Christmas specials are their own things and don't really belong with any series, but the article groups them with the individual series according to the box sets. I stand corrected, and I have to say that I'm neutral on the matter. DonQuixote (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"The Husbands of River Song" is included in the Series 9 boxset[2], and therefore needs to be listed under Series 9. Consensus has been reached in the above section. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That's hardly consensus; there is you and one neutral. I would really like some more input. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I realise that, but consensus is unnecessary, there can be no argument, "The Husbands of River Song" is included on the Series 9 boxset, and the way it works is that Christmas specials are grouped with the series they were released on DVD/Blu-ray with. By reverting my edits, you are being disruptive, as you are removing information with no grounds. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That has not always been the case; we also look at production blocks for instance, which negates DVD releases. So i'd like some more input before we change this. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No we don't, we list the Christmas special production block under the series it is grouped with based on boxsets. Anyway, this year's Christmas special was filmed in September closer to the filming of Series 9 than Series 10, which is thought to be beginning filming in May 2016. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Read this: List of Doctor Who home video releases#cite_note-christmas-257. Alex|The|Whovian 23:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That is only the case if the Christmas special is released on DVD/Blu-ray with the following series, it does not negate boxsets. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Please bring up the alleged discussion where it was decided to list them as they're grouped by their DVD releases. Alex|The|Whovian 11:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to provide a discussion to prove my point, we do not list Christmas specials under the following series regardless of boxsets, if this were the case then "The Time of the Doctor" would be listed under Series 8. If we don't group by boxsets how do we group? No reason why it shouldn't be listed under Series 9 has been provided. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You claimed that "the way it works is that Christmas specials are grouped with the series they were released on DVD/Blu-ray with". For something like this to have been decided, there must have been a discussion and consensus on it here on Wikipedia, else this is simply you forcing your opinion of layout without anything to back it. "The Time of the Doctor" was described as a 2013 Special, hence its inclusion where it currently is. There have been several reasons - first and foremost, Christmas Specials are listed as introductory to a series, unless it has already been categorized into a Specials section. Alex|The|Whovian 11:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Why should a Christmas special be considered the introduction to a series if it has no connection to it? The majority of past Christmas specials are listed under the following series because they were released on DVD/Blu-ray with it. There is no reason not to list "The Husbands of River Song" under Series 9. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Easier, tidier, and makes more sense. Correction: The majority of past Christmas specials are listed under the following series because they are introductory to the series (e.g. "The Christmas Invasion" is introductory to and leads into Series 2, just as "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" is to Series 7). The fact that they were released on the same box-sets is an irrelevant coincidence. Alex|The|Whovian 12:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Since when is that the rule? 2.121.226.6 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Has been pretty much since this page was changed from individual tables (where specials had their own tables) that were separate to the series pages, to transcluding the tables directly from the series pages. Alex|The|Whovian 12:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a discussion where this was decided? 2.121.226.6 (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. My attempt to broach the issue of an episode being listed in a series that comes after it. Talk:Doctor_Who_(series_9)/Archive_1#Why_is_Last_Christmas_part_of_this_series. In that case, the contradiction of having the first line of the article saying "The ninth series of the British science fiction television programme Doctor Who premiered on 19 September 2015" and "Last Christmas" listed as the first episode in the table in the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"Last Christmas" is not, actually, listed as the first episode of the series, nor claimed to be. As per List of Doctor Who serials#Series 9 (2015), check the second column entitled "Episode": "Last Christmas" is labeled with a –, and "The Magician's Apprentice" is #1. Alex|The|Whovian 12:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I don't need to provide a discussion to prove my point". Besides, the links for the archives exist on this page for a reason. Alex|The|Whovian 12:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That discussion states that the likely hood of "Last Christmas" being included on the boxset as reason enough to list "Last Christmas" under Series 9, but now boxsets are irrelevant? The discussion you provided does not prove your point but mine. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

How does "Last Christmas" act as an introduction to Series 9? It ties up several Series 8 themes such as Clara and Danny's relationship, and "Death in Heaven" leads directly into it. How exactly does it lead into Series 9? BlueBlue11 (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a point, it doesn't contain any Series 9 themes but it does contain Series 8 themes, it seems as though the only thing keeping under Series 9 is its inclusion on the boxset. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

referring to my earlier comment, I meant "first episode in table" as first listed entry in the table not listed as first episode of Series 9. But I'll rephrase, how about "the contradiction of Series 9 starting on premiered on 19 September 2015, and "Last Christmas" being in the article on Series 9". GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering the Christmas special as an introduction to the series without being part of it made sense and worked back when each series began in Spring and you had a coming soon trailer for it at the end of the Christmas special, but now each series begins in Autumn and subsequently there is no coming soon trailer at the end of the Christmas special and it is followed by an 8–9 month gap before the next series, it would make sense to list Christmas specials under the previous series. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

So, now we're no longer debating on the inclusion of "The Husbands of River Song", but of "Last Christmas"? Alex|The|Whovian 02:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In that it's a Christmas special and we are discussing how Christmas specials are grouped with the series, it is related. Are both "Last Christmas" and "The Husbands..." part of 9? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, gotchya. No. Alex|The|Whovian 10:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

So what about my proposition above? 2.121.226.6 (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There seems to me inconsistency around classifying Christmas specials. I see no reliable source that classifies Christmas specials as 'introductory' specials for the following season. While this could be true of some Christmas specials, it certainly isn't true of all. Delving into whether an episode is 'introductory' to the next season, or thematically part of the previous season seems like original research to me. You could potentially use the production blocks as a more reliable source, though it would change the placement of specials like The Next Doctor, The Doctor, The Widow and the Wardrobe, Last Christmas to be in the preceding seasons instead. Even then, that is contentious. To me this discussion should centre around whether we should change the definition of where specials should be in the series pages. I think using the Complete Series DVDs/BluRays is the most consistent and reliably sourced method. In my opinion, The Husbands of River Song should be added to to the end of the ninth series labeled with a – for the episode number because of that reason. Thoughts?  The Windler talk  13:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, boxsets are the only sourced and indisputable method of classification, considering them as the introduction to the following series without being part of it doesn't work for a lot of Christmas specials and is unsourced and to a certain degree, based on opinion. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex, I was questioning Last Christmas' dubious status as an 'introductory' special for Series 9 rather than its inclusion in the series. I agree with including Husbands of River Song on the Series 9 page. BlueBlue11 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

So are we agreed that boxsets should be used to classify Christmas specials and therefore "The Husbands of River Song" should be listed under Series 9? 2.121.226.6 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Has consensus been reached? 2.121.226.6 (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not quite yet. And there is no rush. If anything, Christmas specials shouldn't be part of the series' articles to begin with. We should take inventory of all the specials and see how they best fit in depending on production and ohter factors (not just DVD releases). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No boxsets should not be used. They are put together by the marketing arm of the BBC not by those that are producing the series. I agree with Edoktor's statement. Also WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY are the appropriate policies for entries. Not WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. MarnetteD|Talk 19:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should just list them on their own as they are separate and don't belong with any series. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

That would cause an unneeded amount of clutter on the List of Episodes page. Definitely disagree with that. Alex|The|Whovian 23:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No it wouldn't, it would be correct and make it clear that Christmas specials are separate. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

And also cluttered. Create a sandbox version of your proposal and see for yourself. Alex|The|Whovian 11:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability comes above layout in Wikipedia's policies. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with GraemeLeggett. IMO on a list this large I don't think it would make it any more cluttered than it already is. Also, if memory serves the Xmas specials were separate from the season blocks for the first few years of the revived series. MarnetteD|Talk 12:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

So are we agreed that Christmas specials should be listed separately? 2.121.226.6 (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you plan on linking to these new sub-sections? Also cluttering the series overview table? Alex|The|Whovian 13:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

As GraemeLeggett said, verifiability come above layout on Wikipedia. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This is concerning linking to the sections, not layout or verifiability. Please answer the question accordingly. Alex|The|Whovian 13:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The same way as each series. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this what you propose to link to the sections for each special? Yeesh. And what of the 2012 and 2013 Christmas specials? Alex|The|Whovian 13:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that, other than the fact that "The Snowmen" comes in the middle of Series 7, although we could list Part 1 and Part 2 separately, like with Season 4 and Season 21. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Per MarnetteD, GraemeLeggett and IP (and as implied on another Talk Page), I find it misleading to include Specials in series tables when they aren't part of that series. Unfortunately, Doctor Who can't be neatly arranged in series tables :) There is no rush, but we should find a better way of listing them. Stephenb (Talk) 15:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Well I think the best option is leaving the Christmas specials up to "A Christmas Carol" where they are, and moving "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" to Series 6, "Last Christmas" to Series 8 and "The Husbands of River Song" to Series 9, as with all them there is no coming soon trailer at the end and they are followed by a long gap before the next series (for the first two, 9 months). 2.121.226.6 (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It's absolutely terrible. And Series 7 can't be separated! You're making an entire planet out of a molehill. And why are we basing this entire thing on the Next Time trailer? Where your verifability when it comes to that, or are you making that decision yourself? Yes, you are. Alex|The|Whovian 23:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you realise that can be applied to your logic as well? BlueBlue11 (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Not when it comes to the WP:STATUSQUO. Alex|The|Whovian 23:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

None of this discussion about grouping will affect such as {{Doctor Who episodes}} or {{Doctor Who Episodes By Steven Moffat}} either. What do you plan to do with them? Expand them further with more subgroups? Alex|The|Whovian 00:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I was with attaching "The Husbands of River Song" to the end of Series 9 up until suggestions were made about swapping NUMEROUS Christmas specials around. Everything is fine as it is. "The Time of the Doctor" should NOT be attached to the start of Series 8, since it's completely unrelated and isn't included on the box-set. "Last Christmas" SHOULD be attached to Series 9 since it IS included on the box-set and is not really a stand-alone special, as it leads directly into Series 9 (and it's usually the norm for specials to be attached to the series that comes after them). However, although "The Husbands of River Song" is pretty stand-alone from Series 9 - therefore meaning it should be attached to Series 10, as per the norm - despite being broadcast just three weeks later, it IS going to be included on the box-set. I firmly believe we won't see a full series in 2016. With filming apparently beginning in May, it looks like the BBC is moving the show back to the Spring. I think that the only episode we will get in 2016 is the Christmas special. Therefore, THIS 2016 Christmas special should be attached to the beginning of Series 10. It's difficult to explain and I hope people understand what I mean. "The Husbands of River Song" should be attached to the end of Series 9, or left on it's own so Series 10 can begin afresh with the 2016 Christmas special being a lead-in to the first episode of Series 10, logically estimated to begin towards the beginning of 2017. 109.151.163.73 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

No sources have stated that the 2016 Christmas Special will be the only episode that airs next year. BlueBlue11 (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that IF that's the case, that's what'll happen. There's absolutely no way that 12 full episodes will air next year. It's literally impossible to film all of it. If only half of Series 10 airs, then the 2016 special will be slap-bang in the middle of it. If not, then it'll be right at the beginning. This is unless, of course, we get the announcement that they start filming the new series in just a fortnight. If not, then it's impossible to fit all 12 episodes of Series 10 in before Christmas.109.151.163.73 (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

All of this is your own personal and original research. Alex|The|Whovian 23:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, we all know that certain episodes aren't part of a specific series, yet for some reason you're still determined to keep it listed alongside them? Last Christmas was filmed alongside the rest of Series 8, was broadcast closer to Series 8, continued themes and plot points from Series 8, and the Series 8 finale led directly into it. Yet because it is on the box-set it is considered part of Series 9? That's illogical. I understand it may look more cluttered, or cause issues with Series 7, but to arguing that Last Christmas belongs to Series 9 or The Husbands of River Song belongs to Series 10 is not just illogical - it's inaccurate. And I do believe it is Wikipedia's job to be accurate - not necessarily to look good. What is needed here is not a discussion about any sort of system to use to determine where to list Christmas Specials - it should be on a case by case basis. 78.146.32.2 (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup. No Special is part of a series. Doesn't matter about Box Sets, we're talking about the broadcasts of episodes. None of them were shown as part of any series, and therefore it is misleading to include them in any series table. Stephenb (Talk) 22:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Each special should have its own individual listing. The only exceptions should be situations where the specials are grouped, for example that 2009 Specials, or 2013 Specials. Series 7 presents the unique problem of featuring the 2012 Christmas Special in the middle of the Series, but that's something which can be resolved with the use of Series 7a and Series 7b - something the BBC themselves used. 78.146.32.2 (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Then opposing my previous views in other discussions, I'm going to suggest splitting this article into classic and revived episode articles. Having separate rows for each special will cause this article to be far too long. I still disagree, however, with splitting Series 7. Alex|The|Whovian 00:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not for each special - simply for the Christmas specials that stand alone. Adding 7 more little boxes won't lengthen the page much longer than it already is. If someone's willing to scroll through the current length, they'll be willing to scroll through a little more. Splitting the pages just results in more work needing done. As for splitting Series 7, that's not really your decision? By which I mean it's a choice the BBC made. You can still check on the BBC website [3] where it lists the second half as Series 7 Part 2. To paraphrase a certain Time Lord, these things have happened, they are facts. It's our job to document them, not alter them. 78.146.32.2 (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Nor is it your decision, it's consensus. Series 7 was also advertised in its entirety as Series 7, and I could use the (somewhat unfounded) argument above of using boxsets to determine the display - Series 7 was also released as an entire set. It's been listed as an entire set up until now with no issues at all. Alex|The|Whovian 02:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, consensus is all fine and dandy when it comes to certain things, but not when it skews the facts. The moment you start throwing around consensus as a reason for doing something then this website loses its integrity. If we all agreed to forgo seasons completely, should we do that? Not at all. Because then it'd be factually lacking. My point is, that factually Last Christmas is not part of Series 9. The Husbands of River Song is not part of Series 10. No matter how they're released on boxsets, they are not part of those series. Those are facts. And if we list them under those series then what we are doing is presenting factually incorrect information. We can note the boxsets they were released with on their individual pages, but those boxsets should not be used as a guide. 78.146.32.2 (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If you'd actually read the discussion, you would note that I was against using the boxsets to determine how they're laid out. I was merely putting myself in their (the people who used that as an argument) shoes for the sake of that. I agree with not using boxsets; I disagree against your view of where the specials should be (and yes, I am allowed to do that - disagree). Alex|The|Whovian 02:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with splitting the article into a "classic" section and a "revived section". Because it's all the same show. The BBC have never made the distinction between classic and new Doctor Who and they regarded it as one show from the start, despite the fact that the series numbers were restarted. BlueBlue11 (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that the best option is using boxsets as it is sourced, it is indisputable and it is free from opinion. The producers have input and certain degree of control over the boxsets, marketing do not have complete control. It is incorrect to list Christmas specials separately as most did not get a standalone DVD/Blu-ray release. It is wrong to ignore boxsets and other DVD/Blu-ray releases, it is ignoring and going against an indisputable source. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue with using DVD/Blu-ray releases is that they vary! Look [4] You can buy Time of the Doctor including A Christmas Carol, The Doctor, The Widow and the Wardrobe, and the Snowmen. So do we include those in a section of their own? Using DVD/Blu-ray releases causes problems. Last Christmas and The Husbands of River Song are both available on the Series 9 boxset [5], yet neither of them belong to the 9th Series as proven by the fact the box cover notes that the set has has "all 12 episodes". Christmas Specials are just that - Special. Standalone. Not part of a series. 78.146.32.2 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes there are problems with using boxsets. Maybe we should go by broadcast and production, meaning that "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" would be under Series 6, "Last Christmas" would be under Series 8 and "The Husbands of River Song" would be under Series 9, as they were all broadcast and produced much closer to the previous series. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. If we're listing specials separately, I recommend that we do not add them to the overview table, but instead create something similar to what has already existed before, but in a manner more fitting to the currently existing content. Alex|The|Whovian 11:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

We still have the problem of "The Snowmen" airing in the middle of Series 7, so as I said before we should go by broadcast and production, meaning that "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" would be under Series 6, "Last Christmas" would be under Series 8 and "The Husbands of River Song" would be under Series 9, as they were all broadcast and produced much closer to the previous series.. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about the specials being completely split. Placing them based on when they were broadcast and produced is original research. Alex|The|Whovian 12:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Then using boxsets is the best option as it is sourced and therefore indisputable. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to re-read this entire discussion on why boxsets aren't to be used. I now concur that splitting them into their own sections is the only reliable direction to take this. Alex|The|Whovian 13:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Your right, listing them separately is the best and most accurate way to list them, but how to we overcome the fact that "The Snowmen" aired in the middle of Series 7, despite being a standalone special, the only option I can see is listing Part 1 and Part 2 separately. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think for clarity sake and simplicity, the Xmas specials should be attached to the series (as currently is). The article is very long as it is and splitting the specials out, creates quite a few extra headings which I think is not worth the trouble, even if it is more reliable. You'd have to split both 2013 specials, you'd even have to split "The Next Doctor" from the 2008-10 specials unless you could source that those are all grouped. Even though I believe the boxsets is a factually OK, others have disagreed. But in comparison to splitting each special out, potentially splitting Series 7, I think the clarity of the article and the individual pages that these tables are transcended from is far better off in its current form, therefore think that Husbands of River Song should remain in its own section until we see what happens with Series 10.  The Windler talk  12:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)n

I also don't see why people are so against using boxsets, I have not come across a good reason for not using boxsets, it is sourced and indisputable. Listing them separately can be disputed as several are part of a story arc and most didn't get a standalone release. As I said before, the producers have input and certain degree of control over the boxsets, marketing do not have complete control. It is wrong to ignore boxsets and other DVD/Blu-ray releases, it is ignoring and going against an indisputable source. It is ridiculous that a perfectly reliable source is being dismissed, when in any other case it would be acceptable. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It would most certainly not be acceptable - this is a discussion here, not a "my way or the highway". Besides, there's an entire article dedicated to the boxsets. Alex|The|Whovian 13:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you propose we list Christmas specials? 5.67.73.51 (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In the article I linked to? In their respective "X Doctor releases" but as their own row, with the first cell not as a numbered series but as a dash ("–"). In this article, I've proposed it above elsewhere. Alex|The|Whovian 13:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I say we go ahead and make the change. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

After looking at some other to TV shows on Wikipedia and tthis list I've come to the conclusion that having one rule for all Christmas specials is impossible, as the production schedule and broadcast format has evolved over the last 10 years and will only continue to evolve over time so it’s probably best to decide what is best for each special individually my idea is to list them sparely leving the next doctor, the end of time, the snowmen and the time of the doctor as they currently are as this is how they fit best it won't be that defrent to how the list looked befor the change to using the individual series lists also will the same thing be done for the 5 doctors as this is also a special 2.26.206.85 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, although "The Snowmen" is technically a standalone special, it airs in the middle of Series 7 and it furthers the story arc. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the people that are saying that the Christmas special for 2015 'The Husbands of River Song' should be included with series 9. Im also of the opinion that from series 8 onwards Christmas Specials are epilogue to a series rather than a prologue as it used to be. (Time of the Doctor was of course on its own and that is reflected in the Wiki article anyway). I like others hope to see this rectified soon. Lotrjw (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Separate all specials that aren't the 2008-10 specials, 2013 specials or The Snowmen (including The Five Doctors), and add a new series overview concerning just the specials, removing the specials from the main overview. Alex|The|Whovian 01:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

So is there a consensus to split the necessary specials? Alex|The|Whovian 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is consensus. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Including specials in episode count

I reverted this edit by Babelcolour5 on the series 9 article which added "Last Christmas" to the episode count in the infobox. Then I realized it's not consistent across all series articles. Series 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 have specials listed in the main episode table, and most of them except for series 3 and 9 include the specials in the infobox episode count. I don't think they should be added directly to the episode count, but I'm not sure. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Listing Christmas specials

I've posted this on a new section as the over one has become about all Christmas specials and not just the husbands of river song after looking at some other to shows on Wikipedia and the list I've released that having one rule for all Christmas specials is impossible as all David tenants specials fit very well with the following series as that is how they wher filmed where as the mat smith specials are all over the place with what sires they go with and that's not even metaning the end of time and time of the Doctor which feature regenerations which makes it deficit to list them with the flowing shinies the best idea is to list all Christmas specials separately accept for the 2008 and 9 specials as they are already in the 2008 to 10 spesals the same is true of thee 2013 specials its probably best to cheap the 2012 special in the middle of series 7 as it connects to the story arc of the series more than any other Christmas special outside of the grouped ones2.26.206.85 (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I barely understood this. What I did get is that you created a new discussion about an already existing discussion - please cease such actions and return to the original discussion. Alex|The|Whovian 10:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I've posted this on a new section as the other one has become about all Christmas specials and not just the husbands of river song. After looking at some other to TV shows on Wikipedia and the list I've come to the conclusion that having one rule for all Christmas specials is impossible, as the production schedule and broadcast format has evolved over the last 10 years and will only continue to evolve over time so it’s probably best to decide what is best for each special individually my idea is to list them sparely except the next doctor, the end of time, the snowmen and the time of the doctor as they currently are2.26.206.85 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that 'Last Christmas' and 'The Husbands of River Song' should be as epilogues to series 8 and 9 respectively, instead of prologues to series 9 and series 10. I hope to see this rectified in the future or as others have said split all Christmas episodes from the series the are attached to and give them their own sections between series. Lotrjw (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Story Number / Total Episode Number

It's never occurred to be before, but why do we list episode table with Story Numbers instead of the Total Episode Number, as per almost every article for a television show's episodes? Even the articles states that [t]he three-digit story numbers are not official designations but are merely to serve as a guide to where the story stands in the overall context of the programme. The total episode number in the series, however, is official. Alex|The|Whovian 11:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

How exactly would you go about numbering the classic episodes? It makes more sense to list the classic episodes as stories rather than their individual episodes, and I guess that numbering just carried over to the new episodes for continuity's sake. Though I guess you could group the classic episodes into stories but also list the individual episode count alongside them. BlueBlue11 (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

And have three columns identifying the numbers? That's unnecessary, and {{Episode table}} nor {{Episode list}} allow it. Given that the second sentence of this article is "As of 25 December 2015, 826 episodes of Doctor Who have aired, concluding the ninth series", then goes on to mention stories, it does make sense to list them by episode number. Story 1 would be Episodes 1–4, Story 2 would be Episode 5–11, etc. Note that not even "187c" or "260a" (story numbers with letters) are official designations, invented by Wikipedia editors. Alex|The|Whovian 12:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with listing them by episode number, but I'd propose that we still list the overall classic story titles somewhere. If you just title the classic episodes "Episode One, Episode Two..." or "Part One, Part Two.." it would be near impossible to break them down into the individual stories, and under the titles that they are universally referred to. BlueBlue11 (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not meaning like that. I mean listing them as one of the following, given that story numbers are not official. Alex|The|Whovian 12:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

No. overall No. in season Title Directed by Written by Original air date Prod. code UK viewers (millions) AI 1–4 1 An Unearthly Child "An Unearthly Child" "The Cave of Skulls" "The Forest of Fear" "The Firemaker" Waris Hussein Anthony Coburn 23 November 1963 30 November 1963 7 December 1963 14 December 1963 A 4.4 5.9 6.9 6.4 63 59 56 55 1 2 3 4 1 An Unearthly Child "An Unearthly Child" "The Cave of Skulls" "The Forest of Fear" "The Firemaker" Waris Hussein Anthony Coburn 23 November 1963 30 November 1963 7 December 1963 14 December 1963 A 4.4 5.9 6.9 6.4 63 59 56 55

I'd rather have the second one. Do you mind showing how you would change the new series template? BlueBlue11 (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Same thing. Alex|The|Whovian 13:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Extended content
No. overall No. in series Title Directed by Written by Original air date Prod. code UK viewers (millions) AI 696 1 "Rose" Keith Boak Russell T Davies 26 March 2005 (2005-03-26) 1.1 10.81 81

I'd prefer the first one. I don't think there's an advantage to listing the individual episode numbers, since it's all in one table row, so it wouldn't really help screen reader users or anything. Also – this applies to the current version of the article as well – the contrast ratio between the season 1 background and the AI link is too low, it doesn't even reach the AA level. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

So do I take it we've agreed on this? If we have agreed on it then I'm happy to edit the page myself. BlueBlue11 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a test run of Season One, tell me what you think and if I should do it for real: BlueBlue11 (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

No. overall No. in series Title Directed by Written by Original air date Prod. code UK viewers (millions) AI 1–4 1 An Unearthly Child "An Unearthly Child" "The Cave of Skulls" "The Forest of Fear" "The Firemaker" Waris Hussein Anthony Coburn 23 November 1963 30 November 1963 7 December 1963 14 December 1963 A 4.4 5.9 6.9 6.4 63 59 56 55 5–11 2 The Daleks "The Dead Planet" "The Survivors" "The Escape" "The Ambush" "The Expedition" "The Ordeal" "The Rescue" Richard Martin and Christopher Barry Terry Nation 21 December 1963 28 December 1963 4 January 1964 11 January 1964 18 January 1964 25 January 1964 1 February 1964 B 6.9 6.4 8.9 9.9 9.9 10.4 10.4 59 58 63 63 63 63 65 12–13 3 The Edge of Destruction "The Edge of Destruction" "The Brink of Disaster" Richard Martin & Frank Cox David Whitaker 8 February 1964 15 February 1964 C 10.4 9.9 61 60 14–20 4 Marco Polo "The Roof of the World"† "The Singing Sands"† "Five Hundred Eyes"† "The Wall of Lies"† "Rider from Shang-Tu"† "Mighty Kublai Khan"† "Assassin at Peking"† Waris Hussein and John Crockett John Lucarotti 22 February 1964 29 February 1964 7 March 1964 14 March 1964 21 March 1964 28 March 1964 4 April 1964 D 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.9 9.4 8.4 10.4 63 62 62 60 59 59 59 21–26 5 The Keys of Marinus "The Sea of Death" "The Velvet Web" "The Screaming Jungle" "The Snows of Terror" "Sentence of Death" "The Keys of Marinus" John Gorrie Terry Nation 11 April 1964 18 April 1964 25 April 1964 2 May 1964 9 May 1964 16 May 1964 E 9.9 9.4 9.9 10.4 7.9 6.9 62 60 61 60 61 63 27–30 6 The Aztecs "The Temple of Evil" "The Warriors of Death" "The Bride of Sacrifice" "The Day of Darkness" John Crockett John Lucarotti 23 May 1964 30 May 1964 6 June 1964 13 June 1964 F 7.4 7.4 7.9 7.4 62 62 57 58 31–36 7 The Sensorites "Strangers in Space" "The Unwilling Warriors" "Hidden Danger" "A Race Against Death" "Kidnap" "A Desperate Venture" Mervyn Pinfield and Frank Cox Peter R. Newman 20 June 1964 27 June 1964 11 July 1964 18 July 1964 25 July 1964 1 August 1964 G 7.9 6.9 7.4 5.5 6.9 6.9 59 59 56 60 57 57 37–42 8 The Reign of Terror "A Land of Fear" "Guests of Madame Guillotine" "A Change of Identity" "The Tyrant of France"† "A Bargain of Necessity"† "Prisoners of Conciergerie" Henric Hirsch and John Gorrie Dennis Spooner 8 August 1964 15 August 1964 22 August 1964 29 August 1964 5 September 1964 12 September 1964 H 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.4 6.9 6.4 58 54 55 53 53 55 ^† Episodes are missing

That looks confusing. We really should point out the difference between stories and epsiodes, otherwise, it is just inside (fan) information. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It already is explained: "As of 25 December 2015, 826 episodes of Doctor Who have aired, concluding the ninth series. This includes one television movie, and encompasses 261 stories over 35 seasons." Also how is it fan information?BlueBlue11 (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

What the real fan information is are the story numbers. We're listing them without any source that explicitly states them, and we're having a discussion on what they should be without - again - any source that explicitly states them. Total episode numbers, however, are definitive and cannot be changed. Clarification is given in the header with "No. overall" and "No. in season/series". Alex|The|Whovian 02:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who Magazine, citing Russell T Davies, is our source all the way up to story #200. DonQuixote (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

And what about past #200? Even then (this is directly from the Planet of the Dead#200th story of the article), it states that Russell T Davies admitted that the designation was arbitrary and debatable, and hence it shouldn't be something we're basing a major listing of episodes on. Alex|The|Whovian 06:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who Magazine had a 241 story count after the Matt Smith era ended. It continues to be a source listing an official story count, and therefore, making it perfectly valid to include the story count in the list of serials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.26.5 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

My point is: don't use vague terms in the table headers, just cal them what they are: "episode number" and "story number". -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough; I see your point. However, once story numbers are totally eliminated, there won't be anything to be vague about, it will all be episode numbers. Alex|The|Whovian 11:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Has a decision been made regarding removal of story numbers? As the introduction of the page says The numbering scheme used here reflects the current internal practice of describing "Planet of the Dead" (2009) as the 200th story, used in the official magazine's 407th issue. As for past DWM 407, DWM 474 lists 241 stories and on page 64 states "With 41 gleaming new stories from The Water of Mars to The Time of the Doctor, this was the latest opportunity to sort your Mentors from your Mentiads and your Krillitanes from your Kroll. We presented you with a list of all 241 stories and asked you to compare, contrast and critique". I think story numbers do exist 'officially' within Doctor Who, as used by the official magazine, which does make it unique compared with other series. So on a page that lists all this information, having each story is important information worth keeping.  The Windler talk  12:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Though I don't see why they need to have padded zeroes. It could be "1" instead of "001".  The Windler talk  12:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion seems to be to not count the stories while still grouping episodes together in stories. That makes zero sense. If we're grouping episodes into stories, there is no reason not to count stories. As for the reason why every other show doesn't do this is because Doctor Who is relatively unique in this respect. The story count is official because we have the official Doctor Who magazine and the official promotion of Planet of the Dead as the 200th Story. Ridding the article of story count would be eliminating a helpful and sourced piece of information for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.26.5 (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

What further information do story numbers provide? Nothing. Nothing at all. Episode Totals have always been the go-to numbers for listings; the main Doctor Who article even uses the total number in the infobox before the story numbers, and the latter was only a recent addition thanks to your truly. We are not grouping the episode together in stories, we are grouping them by total episode number. It does not matter whether you think your viewpoint of Doctor Who being "unique" is true or not - Wikipedia goes by a standard. Alex|The|Whovian 13:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

My view that Doctor Who is unique in this regard is not my personal opinion nor is not against Wikipedia standard. It's simple logic. Doctor Who counts stories (hence "Planet of the Dead" advertised as the 200th story") while other shows count episodes (ex. The Simpsons advertising their 100th, 200th or 300th episode). Doctor Who never made a big deal over what the 800th episode was, because that is not how the show has been ever counted. The story count is official (BBC and Doctor Who Magazine) and practical. So it makes no sense to confuse things by switching over to episodes. And yes, you would still be group episodes by stories in your suggestion, if you group all 4 episodes of An Unearthly Child together (as you do in your example), that is still making a grouping based on this concept of a story. All your switch would do is make this page really confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.26.5 (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How can the episode count not be official? Are you seriously implying that the story total is more official than the episode total? And no, it wouldn't be confusing to number the classic episodes while still grouping them into stories. There's already explanations at the start of the article and I think it's pretty easy to follow. BlueBlue11 (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't implying that at all. I was implying that the story count has been used for promotion purposes more than episode count, which makes this push for episode count over story count seem rather arbitrary. If we do have to make a choice of using one or the other, we should go with the one that is actually used by the BBC and other sources to promote the show. That's story count. Besides we count the stories the same way we would episodes, we start at the number one and count up. The math doesn't change. And if we are grouping classic episode by stories, then yes it makes sense to count by stories. For these reasons, there is nothing wrong with basing this article on story count.71.167.26.5 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

So, we should count the new series exactly the same as the classic series because of a totally different production scheme? Alex|The|Whovian 01:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Grouping the episodes by story for the classic series but not for the modern series would doing exactly that, and it would look weird. Keeping a story count on the other hand is consistent and reflects the ways the episodes are counted by official sources.71.167.26.5 (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Except for everything after "The Time of the Doctor". Alex|The|Whovian 07:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

why change after time of the Doctor the fact is that story count is used to promote the show and to refer to story's and episode count is only used as trivia like with the 100th new episode and the 800th overall even DWM polls list story's not episodes expat with one part story's if you want to number epiasodes add another column don't remove story Numbers 2.26.206.85 (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't saying I'd change everything after TToTD, I was saying it's all unsourced. Also, milestones are trivial in any format, episode or story, such as this. 100th new episode trivial? So's 100th story. Also noted is that DWM is a totally different thing than Wikipedia, and a third column cannot be added, given that neither {{Episode table}} nor {{Episode list}} are compatible for that. Alex|The|Whovian 11:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The story count's official is it? "The three-digit story numbers are not official designations but are merely to serve as a guide to where the story stands in the overall context of the programme." BlueBlue11 (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Your source for their unofficialness of story numbering is an unsourced claim on the wikipedia page? That doesn't hold any weight. As for everything after The Time of the Doctor. No, it isn't unsourced. Doctor Who Magazine and other sources still state what the stories are even if they haven't had an official poll of all the stories since Time of the the Doctor. But we have season polls and other guides to source.71.167.26.5 (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. These polls do not directly state the story numbers, hence they remain unsourced. Alex|The|Whovian 23:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the polls provide a source for the stories are. The story numbers come from lining these stories up in order and counting them, the exact same way you would calculate total episode number. You know Time of the Doctor is story x, then you know Deep Breath is story x+1, because it is the next story. The same is true for episodes. If you know Time of the Doctor is episode x, then you know Deep Breath is episode x+1, because that is the next episode. So I'm really not sure where you are trying to go with this argument.71.167.26.5 (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That may be so, but manual calculations are original research. They need to explicitly state the story numbers. Alex|The|Whovian 01:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That would only make sense if you also need a source to "explicitly" state episode number, which you don't seem to believe and isn't a standard any television show on Wikipedia seems to need. Your suggesting the same calculations be used. 71.167.26.5 (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

What? It "isn't a standard any television show on Wikipedia seems to need"? Really? Doctor Who is the only television series that doesn't list its episodes by total episode number. It seems you need to visit Wikipedia a bit more. Episode numbers are solid and cannot be debated - story numbers are based upon interpretation - even Russell T Davis said that they're unreliable (further up in the discussion). There's an entire discussion about story numbers for Face the Raven / Heaven Sent / Hell Bent. Alex|The|Whovian 02:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not the only television series on wikipedia that doesn't list its episodes by total episode number, episode numbers can be debated (Is that two-hour episode one episode or two? Do the episodes counted in production order or airing order?), and the Russell T Davies was still the person who pushed for The Planet of the Dead to promoted as the 200th episode, showing that he also subscribed to the story count. As for the numbering to the final stories of Series 9. Moffat and Doctor Who Magazine have gone on record about how they should be counted, people have been over this in that thread. I seem to remember you being one of the only hold-outs on that manner. Even so, you missed my point. My comment wasn't about whether other shows use total episode count. It pertained to the fact that you were asking for a source on a total story count, while not asking the same for a total episode count. To be honest, it doesn't seem like this is about whether story numbering can be sourced. It seems to be about your personal preference for one over the other. As a result, you are grasping at straws. There is a system in place, we have sources to support it, and the formatting works. There is no reason to change it.71.167.26.5 (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Story numbers can be debated. Total episode counts cannot. You're arguing your preference for one, I'm arguing mine for the other. I am not grasping at straws - you are the one making large replies to make yourself appear as if you have a more solid argument, when there is no basis or foundation behind any of your arguments. Alex|The|Whovian 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry the size of my responses bothers you, but I'm just making sure my replies are thorough. Anyway, again, we have sources for the stories that are perfectly sound. We have sources that show they are counted that way, sources that show that show the exact number of stories through the Matt Smith era, and sources that confirm exactly what constitute stories in the Peter Capaldi era, which gives us, again, the exact number of stories currently released. That is the basis of my argument, which you have been trying to skate around. And since we do, in fact, have sources, it would seem my arguments do have basis and foundation, despite your attempts to dismiss them.71.167.26.5 (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

So, as an example, would you say that there needs to be explicit ources for the total episode numbers at, say, List of Once Upon a Time episodes, given that there's multiple two parters and hence a different number of "stories"? Alex|The|Whovian 04:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, no, because, first, doing so would be the natural extension of your argument, not mine. Second, Once Upon a Time has never used the term stories as a way to count itself, nor have stories ever been determined by or used as a counter by ABC, the production team, or an officially related magazine. Doctor Who, on the other hand, does, and there happen to be sources that back that up.71.167.26.5 (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you're unaware of the simply meaning of an "example". This is going in circles, more editors need to contribute to the discussion. Alex|The|Whovian 05:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Episode ratings

Care should be taken with the citation for episode ratings. Every use of it with exception of series 9 used the following citation:

<ref name="AllRatings">{{cite web|title=Ratings Guide|url=http://guide.doctorwhonews.net/info.php?detail=ratings&type=date|website=Doctor Who News|accessdate=27 December 2014}}</ref>

When the series tables are transcluded into this page, any commonly named citations not agreeing with each other will cause an error to be displayed in the reflist. This was just corrected with series 8 and a small table on this page. With such a large page, these things can get very messy. Ryan8374 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

That cite is a bit of a problem of itself - since you have an access date before the air date on recent series. A limitation of trying to simplify by linking to a composite page rather than linking to the specific page on the episode. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett has a point. {{Cite web}} documentation states that accessdate should be the "Full date when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article". Perhaps we should forgo the use of the reference in every season/series article, and add a statement on this page (possibly under #Series overview) about the verification of the viewer counts with the reference. Alex|The|Whovian 12:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It's more in keeping with policy to do it properly by linking to the actual page in question, complete with access date. Bulks out the refs section but does give proper traceability. Alternatively if a dead tree source is used, then it can be book and page number. Even with a web, it is possible to do a basic reference - givening website etc information and a short cite to specific page. Short citations take up less room in a "columned" refs section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Average Ratings

Why have all the average ratings been removed from the overview table? They seemed like pretty useful information and now they're completely gone. 109.151.163.216 (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you think of checking the article history? It clearly states the following: WP:TVOVERVIEW states "If average viewership numbers are included, they should be adequately sourced, and not the result of your own calculations as this would constitute original research." Alex|The|Whovian 12:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, no need to be so patronising. Still, it's worked fine for years up until today.109.151.163.216 (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)