# Talk:Doctor Who season 1 (1963–1964)

Is it right to call the original version of an unearthly child a pilot?  If it had been filmed correctly (ie of sufficient quality to pass Sidney Newman) then it would have been the episode that was used (and therefore not remounted).  In a similar manner to this the first episode of the daleks (the dead planet) was remounted (according to the Doctor Who missing episodes page). Shouldn't this be included on this page in a similar manner? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 10:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't see why not. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Most sources refer to the 27 September recording of "An Unearthly Child" as the pilot episode. To describe it in any other way needs a reliable source which explicitly uses another term; to make up another one ourselves is WP:OR. This episode had many changes between original and remount: the scripts, sets and costumes were all changed, in some places significantly. Production techniques also differed - for example, fewer cameras were used.
As regards the 15 November recording of "The Dead Planet", that was remounted for technical reasons (the soundtrack was unacceptable), with few (if any) changes from the original scripts and sets. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I was only responding to last element of question. I meant I don't see why it couldn't be mentioned, not that it should be called a pilot. Apologies for vagueness.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I understood the response.  I added something in for the dead planet and some extra wording for the 'pilot'.  It doesn't stop me hating it being called a pilot as it was never intended to be as such.
was the soundtrack problem on the dead planet voices from the production team getting onto the soundtrack? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was the talkback. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.
To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.
To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.
Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is this (and other Dr Who pages) titled 'season' when 'series' is the British usage and under WP:ENGVAR this page should be in British English? IanB2 (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@IanB2: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Manual of style § Terminology: A season is [a] year's worth of episode broadcasts from the classic series. Although against UK convention, the term "season" is accepted usage for the classic series. A series is [a] year's worth of episode broadcasts from the new series. You will find the first series as Doctor Who (series 1). Alex|The|Whovian? 02:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for the link; I imagined it would probably have been raised before.  It's a shame that a solution to the disambiguation between the classic and modern series couldn't have been found that didn't break the convention, but there we are.  IanB2 (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Per the link, the classic era was actually referred to as seasons in the first Programme Guide in 1981, so it's a valid naming schematic per reliable sources. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
And to back that up further with something accessible online, the BBC website uses the same convention [1]. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who (season 1)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 09:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this one for review. I have reviewed articles for some of the new seasons, so if this is as good as those ones then we shouldn't have a problem. I hope to get some feedback on the article for you in the next couple of days. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, here are some points that I would like to see addressed before I promote the article to GA:

The sentence "Formatting of the programme was handled by Newman, head of serials Donald Wilson, C. E. Webber, and Rex Tucker, as the initial character details were conceived" is confusing to me. I'm not sure who Webber and Tucker are (are the also heads of serials) and the last clause doesn't make much sense to me.
The sentence "Throughout the season, the Doctor and his companions travel throughout history, visiting significant figures such as Marco Polo and events such as the Reign of Terror, as well as into the future, where they encounter alien creatures such as the Daleks and the Sensorites" should be re-written. At the moment it is a bit run-on-y and uses "such as" too many times.
I would like to see the episode summaries expanded a bit. I would usually expect them to be closer to the "limit" at MOS:TVPLOT, which is 200 words, and that's for individual episodes rather than the multiple per summary that we have here. I think something between 150 and 200 for each story would be good.
A few typos: "the story itself lacked the necessarily impact for an opener", "mostly notably"
The release section should mention the actual release of the episodes (probably in their own section).
Have a go at those and let me know if you have any questions. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Thanks for the review! I've gone through and addressed your concerns. Let me know if you have any more issues. – Rhain ☔ 08:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Awesome, great work! I am happy to pass  this review now, as this article meets all the criteria and my concerns have been dealt with (and very promptly too). Congratulations! - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

William Russell at BAFTA 1998 (cropped).jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doctor Who series 14 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doctor Who series 14 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 08:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rhain The bundled references are to prevent the episode table being forced to span three lines upon transclusion, such as this, as opposed to a standard table only needing two lines like this, which is the television standard; this is what the bundling looking like through transclusion. Is this a major issue? -- Alex_21 TALK 00:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

That seems entirely dependent on screen size, to be fair; this is how bundling appears on mine, for instance, and this is without my user preferences. That being said, I have no issues with bundling the transcluded refs for the sake of consistency; I've restored those changes. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC). I've bundled in the articles themselves too, using {{Sfnm}}. ☔

I like the approach that's being taken, of addressing issues individually. As a closer, it was nice to have a clear question (does this need disambiguation) and see consensus be able to develop on that, without having all the other issues taken together. Ivey (talk - contribs) 13:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Noted! Now onto the next one... I notice that currently the title is rendering as Doctor Who season 1 (1963–1964) - not sure how to fix the italicisation there? U-Mos (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
It's because {{infobox television season}} assumes the show will be disambiguated, not the season, and it's getting confused inside Module:Infobox television season name. I added a {{DISPLAYTITLE}} magic word that fixes it. Ivey (talk - contribs) 16:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Fantastic work. Given the closure at Talk:Doctor Who series 15#Requested move 17 March 2025:

there is significant support for Doctor Who season 2 (2025), but there's a problem with that. This season is the dominant season by page views. If that's a common, if not the most common name for the current 2025 series, then how can the 1964–65 season still be considered the primary topic for Doctor Who season 2?

The last question is now answered, in that there is not a primary topic for "Doctor Who season 2". The latest 2025 series should now be returned to RM, given that there is evidence of this particular title now being both the common and official name, noting the above quote backs the "significant support". -- Alex_21 TALK 00:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)