# Talk:Doctor Who series 7

Just as a query, where did A Town Called Mercy's 9.47 final ratings appear from? I don't believe the BARB association has released any information regarding official ratings yet for this episode. I suggest we wait until the final ratings have been released before writing guesses down, don't you agree? If I am being totally off-hand then please tell me, because I haven't heard of ratings being released so early after the episode's airing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.176.39 (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who (series 7)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 10:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I'll grab this one for review for you. Will try get the review up in the coming days. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The article is pretty close to the standard, just a few improvements that I think should be made before promoting:

I think it would make sense to adjust the dates in the lead to avoid duplication. If you are going to break down the airing dates for the different parts and specials then you shouldn't need the premiere/finale dates in the first sentence.
The list of broadcasters in the second sentence of the lead feels a bit TV Guide-y to me.
The plot summary for "Rain Gods" seems like it could be fleshed out a bit.
The circumstances in which the pair leave... It is a little unclear whether this is talking about the real-world circumstances or the fictional circumstances.
You mention Moffat's "soft mystery" plan but this isn't elaborated on. I feel like a better explanation of this would add to the article.
Grant later returned in... this sentence is unsourced.
The critical reception section seems a bit small, is there any more that can be added here?
Let's start with those for now and I can reassess the article once you have had time to respond. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review! Here's my responses to the above points.
Dates fixed, other channels removed.
"Rain Gods" only runs for 90 seconds, but I've expanded on it where possible.
Rewritten the circumstances sentence, expanded on Mof's "soft mystery" plan with an episode link, sourced Grant.
The article has six separate critical reception entries, in addition to Rotten Tomatoes, which is on par to earlier series articles. I feel it's fine, but if you're definite about adding more, I can find some old articles that reviewed the series.
Cheers. -- /Alex/21 12:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Those changes all look good so far. Maybe for the reception just take a look at any of the reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes for the season and see if there is anything in the ones that have not been included yet that could add to the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. From Rotten Tomatoes: TV Fanatic, Radio Times and SFX Magazine only reviewed singular episodes, IGN and Groucho Reviews were already in the article, and Common Sense Media only listed a generic review for the whole programme (as seen here). I was able to use Under the Radar's review, so I've added that. -- /Alex/21 10:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for putting that work in Alex, I'm happy with the improvements made. I'll go ahead and pass  this review. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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 05:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I propose merging Good as Gold (Doctor Who) into Doctor Who series 7. I think the content in Good as Gold (Doctor Who) can easily be explained in the context of Doctor Who series 7 as a mini-episode created as part of a competition, and with minimal independent coverage compared to other mini-episodes with no articles, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. CGPPlay 01:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Merge: per nom Lililolol (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Merge The few bits of unique content, the reception, are just small one liners grabbed from ROUTINE coverage of new episodes without anything further. TRIVIAL coverage at best. I see no reason why it can't be covered just as adequately at the section it has in the proposed target, with a sentence of production info regarding its unique origins being merged over.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)