Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 3

message: There are italics in practically every section; as far as I can tell, they don't actually denote anything. Do they? Or if not, shouldn't they be removed? --moof 22:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WHO#Style_guide.--SB | T 23:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That only recommends italicising story titles. Accordingly, I'm removing italics from the non-story-title text. --Emurphy42 00:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with all the italics? 

message: Khasworks cites the production codes of the new series in his latest edit summary. If these are known, would it not make sense to include these in the list, as we have for the classic series? --KJBracey 06:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand it correctly, there are no production codes in the way there were in the classic series; there are blocks of varying length (with letter names?), and episodes (referred to by episode number, 1–13 in each season).  I seem to recall seeing somewhere that The Christmas Invasion was filmed as "episode X" (for X-mas?), but I can't recall where that was.  Someone with more time than me might check the clapperboards visible in Doctor Who Confidential eps... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was being imprecise. By "production codes" I don't meant them in a traditional sense, i.e. SSS, 4C, etc. This time round, the production blocks have their own codes, which stretch across several episodes, but internally BBC Wales refers to them as Series 1, Episode 1, etc. For The Christmas Invasion it was designated simply as Episode X, which is why it's not a part of either Series 1 or 2. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we have no idea whether or not it was referred to with or without a Series number attached - do you have a definitive source? Because otherwise, as suggested by the production block and DVD release, it would surely be more logical/correct to consider TCI Series 2, Episode X/Special 1, or whatever... --DBD 20:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It was in DWM #358, and referred to (in a quick and dirty Googling) in this article here, near the end: "Finally, the last big news from DWM is that the Christmas episode - The Christmas Invasion - will be referred to as Episode X by the production team, falling as it does outside of series 1 and series 2." Also on OG here (look a bit down the page under Wednesday Series News, 22 June 2005): "The Christmas Invasion, meanwhile, is referred to as Episode X to avoid confusion in the production office!" No series number attached. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New series production codes 

message: Should there be a spoiler warning for the series 3 section because of the rumours of Shakespere and Ice Warriors? --Jawr256 17:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler 

message: There is a notable link I believe should be put into the section of the new Season 3, as it has a piece about new aliens that shall feature in the next series. The link's already in The Christmas Invasion in the resource part as Number 3. The link is:
:It's already there, linked at footnote #1. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Link 

message: I removed this before, but I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'm bringing it up here rather than removing it again.  I don't think that the comparison of next series' Plasmavores and The Curse of Fenric's Haemovores is terribly noteworthy, and smacks a bit of original research to me.  Blood-sucking and/or vampiric creatures are common in fantastic fiction, and a series as long-running as Doctor Who is bound to revisit them occasionally.  Once we have an article for whatever episode the Plasmavores appear in, we can note the similarities to the Haemovores and other vampires and vampire-like beings that have appeared in Doctor Who, but I don't think we need to mention it here, right now.  The "Series 3" section should be a concise summary of confirmed information and notable press reports, and I don't think the comparison to the Haemovores qualifies. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plasmavores vs. Haemovores 

message: Davies notes the 2nd episode is the Shakespeare one, that the Face of Boe will indeed reveal his secret, that it will be kind of related to the ongoing plot thread which will build up to the finale, which he says will be the "biggest yet". captain jack returns towards end of the series in "multiple episodes".  moffat to explain the missing years.  pours scorn on ideas of rani, three-part christmas special, rose returning, martians.  "i think there's no timelords in the parallel universe".
and they are going to be having a martha and doctor-lite episode.  Morwen - Talk 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsround

message: Definitely not. Different lists, different purposes, and only 3 seasons are affected, and to merge would clutter up this page unnecessarily. Let's speedy this. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To recap--the two lists were split in the first place because it got really messy really quickly.  So, no on the merger. DonQuixote 16:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 5 days, no supporting opinions. Removing the merger tag. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger?

message: |-
|001
|An Unearthly Childaka 100,000 BC and The Tribe of Gum
|A
|4; all extant
|Anthony Coburn and C. E. Webber
|-
|colspan=5|
Susan Foreman looks like an ordinary 15-year-old girl, but seems to possess scientific knowledge far beyond her years. When schoolteachers Ian Chesterton and Barbara Wright try to solve the mystery of this unearthly child, they find that a police box in a junkyard holds the secrets of time and space...
|} 86.12.121.139 07:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we could keep the main listing simple (i.e., no plots), but have a detailed page for each series/season that has the expanded information, and link to them from here?  That would also solve the problem of what to do with the Series 3 stuff.  
MattHucke(t) 14:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's Get Started. I'll do Eccleston and Tennant! I've put Series 1 at Series 1 (Doctor Who)Umpajug 15:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I don't want to throw cold water on your efforts or anything, but I don't think we've actually reached any consensus as to what to do yet. I'm not entirely adverse to the idea, but I see a lot of duplication and the potential for forking which worries me somewhat. Perhaps you should wait for more people to weigh in on Matt's proposal. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just making that page as a sample for editing and then we can sort it out and expand. I've just written it to be improved by "US"--Umpajug 16:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying don't create it as a sandbox, but then it should be as as sandbox, not a live article. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've Put a Work in progress tag on the article. I knew it would come in handy someday!! :)--Umpajug 16:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Voting is evil. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 1 (1963&ndash;64)

message: *Block 1: The Runaway Bride by Russell T Davies (dir: Euros Lyn)
*Block 2: 3.1 Smith and Jones by Russell T Davies; 3.2 by Gareth Roberts (dir: Charles Palmer)
*Block 3: 3.3 by Russell T Davies; 3.6 by Stephen Greenhorn (dir: Richard Clarke)
*Block 4: 3.4 & 3.5 by Helen Raynor (dir: James Strong)
*Block 5: 3.8 & 3.9 by Paul Cornell (dir: Graeme Harper)
*Block 6: 3.7 by Chris Chibnall and 3.10 by Steven Moffat
*Block 7: 3.11 (to be shot simultaneously with 3.10)
*Block 8: 3.12 & 3.13 by Russell T Davies
:All info from Doctor Who: The Inside Story (see ref I've already added to the article naming Smith and Jones).  I might try and incorprate the above into the main text and some point, but if anyone else wants a go, feel free (I don't know how to reference the same book twice!). Stephenb (Talk) 11:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we put the block and director information into the table somehow?  The prose infodump is rather dense, and I think it might be formatted better just as a table.  Morwen - Talk 20:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think the Series 3 table should be connected to the Series 2 table, just like with all the other Doctors'. -Jonathan D. Parshall 04:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Morwen's comment above was before the Series 3 info was put into table format.  We could join the existing Series 3 table to the Series 2 one, but the problem is that we've got information there that isn't in previous series — specifically, director and filming block.  I don't think it would be worthwhile to add filming block info to Series 1 and 2 — IMO the only real value in that is now, when we have bits of information that tie into a certain filming block but we don't know what story they attach to (e.g., the appearances by Roy Marsden and Anne Reid).  However, there could be an argument for adding directors to the table throughout — on the one hand, it's relevant information, but on the other the table is already quite long.  Not sure about this one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The block information isn't really that notable, to be honest, and should, or will eventually, go away. Directors throughout the whole series are kind of borderline. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my feeling too, only I didn't express it very well.  The only reason we have the blocks now is as a shorthand to say things like "Roy Marsden is in either episode 1 or 2, but we don't know which." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand and the joining can wait until Series 3 is well under way.  I think adding directors is a good idea, though.  The writer and the director were the two major credits in the classic eps, if I'm recalling correctly. -Jonathan D. Parshall 04:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Series 3 episode breakdown

message: There is an ongoing poll and Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions. All interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 22:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming conventions poll

message: Wouldn't it be considered part of Series 3?  It's currently listed as part of 2. -Jonathan D. Parshall 08:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the reasoning is that it doesn't share any production blocks with Series 3. Also, even though The Christmas Invasion shared the first block with Series 2, it wasn't considered part of Series 2. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 Christmas Special

message: This article is using words such as "season" - Doctor Who is a britsh television show and hence should be using English words, aka "series". thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Series" is English...isn't it? --Brian Olsen 20:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppsy i mean "seasons" - corrected.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before, most recently at Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 6#Season/Series.  It seems that the classic series of Doctor Who is an anomaly when it comes to the general UK usage of "series".  In the extensive literature on Doctor Who, the vast majority of sources use "season" to refer to the yearly runs of Doctor Who episodes between 1963 and 1989.  The BBC's official Doctor Who website even uses "season" for the classic series.  I think there are enough reliable sources — most of them originating in the UK — that use "season" in this context to justify its use here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a historic reason for this usage: Doctor Who is one of only a few UK scifi programs to have been made with the US season model, where an enormous number of episodes would be produced each year, and broadcasting of a production run would start before it was all shot.  This distinctiveness faded with time, but the usage remained.  82.45.195.6 21:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series.. 

message: OK, I give up -- I just can't get the Pertwee section to match the same format as the others in terms of width. I'd like to insert a couple of season notes similar to those in the Tom Baker section, but for some reason it won't let me do it, I believe because the Pertwee chart is narrower than the others. Can anyone figure out how to standardize it? 23skidoo 04:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should just be a function of the notes being long.  What text is it you want to add?   Morwen - Talk 12:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Have a look now they are now all the same width. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pertwee section

message: ....Mark Gatiss isn't the second so I have changed this to 'one of a select few'. I don't know the number, but it includes:
Derrick Sherwin (unit peaked cap man)
Terrance Dicks (newspaper vendor)
Glyn Jones (colonist)
Victor Pemberton (scientist)
and that's just from memory.
DavidFarmbrough 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written and acted... 

message: Check out the listing for #038.  How could episode SEVEN be missing from a 6-episode story?--BJason 06:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, a typo. Fixed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  #038, Season 5 

message: It seems that the entire format of the list has changed recently, and I'm not sure it's for the better. It seems to be including a lot of information that's not necessary, and omitting useful info such as original airdate. It says that this article is "part of WikiProject List of Television Episodes." However, it's not even following the structure. If this is to comply with the standards of the episode lists, I suggest we rename the article (List of Doctor Who Episodes, as per the naming convention) and add a redirect for the current title, as well as updating the table. Anyone agree? Caiyern - Talk 7:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, because it's not just episodes, it's episodes and serials as well. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Airdates would be a useful inclusion, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added airdates to the Norwegian list and it doesn't look cluttered up. Davhorn 12:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List Format 

message: I know it's sacriledge,but I think the way they have laid out their episode guide looks very clear and easy to read. The best thing about it is the little screen pictures for each episode. Could we do something similar? List_of_Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation_episodes 80.194.5.18 00:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are fair use considerations about that use of images which make it an inadvisable example to follow. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would be a good idea, for the new series at least. We could split it into List of Doctor Who serials and List of Doctor Who episodes.--Codenamecuckoo 09:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we learn from the Star Trek people? 

message: Where have the episode titles:
*Daleks in Manhattan
*The Lazarus Experiment
*The Family of Blood
*Utopioa
been confirmed? 
:In Doctor Who Magazine #378. Davhorn 21:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the episode page for Daleks in Manhattan, it says that the next episode is called 'The Oncoming Storm', but there is no reference to any title on the episode list on this page. Has the title yet been announced? --Riche 22:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it has not. - NP Chilla 01:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DWO claims that the title for episode 5 may be "Hooverville" http://www.drwho-online.co.uk/ - "New Series News Archive" -  "S3: Episode Titles" entry date 12/30/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.196.60.42 (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Series 3 Episode Titles

message: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/episodes/2006/runawaybride.shtml (Click on "Coming Soon...")
On the trailer, about 22/23 seconds in. Is that Christopher Eccleston? The more I watch it the more certain I am... Kamek 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't even look like him if you check out a recording from the television broadcast. Davhorn 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this who I think it is? 

message: Where did this come from? - NP Chilla 22:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's listed on FreemaAgyeman.com's (a fan site) episode guide, but that's hardly a reliable source. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has mentioned it in the production plans section and is citing DWM 377, unfortunately I don't have 377 to hand (ironically I do have 376, and 378 to hand though... my 377 is probably under a pile of rubble somewhere). However I don't remember this and if it is the case wouldn't 378 mention it in it's series three side column? My copy of 378 makes not mention of it. --GracieLizzie 10:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not actually meaning to cite 377, they just wrongly left the ref to 377 there at the end of the sentence.  Morwen - Talk 10:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry about that. But it does look like a 377 cite so I got confused. --GracieLizzie 10:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Flesh and Bone (Doctor Who)|Flesh and Bone]] 

message: I don't recall Davies describing the Jack Straws in the Jo Whiley interview.  (That interview was where I first heard the name "Jack Straws", and that's why the citation is there.) Was the RTD quote brought in from another source?  If so, we should cite it properly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where the original comment came from but he says something to the same effect in DWM 378 which I've added, if anyone knows where the original comment was made please replace the .--GracieLizzie 11:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Straws 

message: Does anyone know where SyFy Portal have gotten the story that Jessica Simpson and Jessica Biel are being pursed for casting? I've not seen this in any of the papers. --GracieLizzie 22:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They credit "Star Pulse", so it looks like they got it from here.  That article seems to be a rehash of the Britney story discussed above, and something that smells like speculation from an unnamed "source".  I wouldn't put too much credit in it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jessica Simpson]] and [[Jessica Biel]]?

message: The Sun is reporting a... well rather HUGE spoiler if it is true. Then OG decides to splash the spoiler all over their main page too. Should we wait to report this? Or stick it in the tabloid section? --GracieLizzie 14:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! (-: thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh I didn't realise I suppose I should check the article first her. As for the Sun, it has had some Who scoops, mind you some people on OG are saying they've made some major mistakes. But I'd still trust the Sun far more than, say, the Daily Star. --GracieLizzie 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a new interview with The Independent that claims to verify the casting first-hand (though there is no attributed quote). Given that it's not a tabloid, and that it was purportedly revealed in the context of an interview, I'm moving it into the "real info" section. I've also added the reference to the Master (Doctor Who) page.--Aderack 03:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that "Mr. Saxon" is the watch word for Series 3, and given that there are rumours abound that "The Master" may make an "unexpected" appearance in the new series. Has it occured to anyone that "Mister Saxon" could be an anagram for "Master No. Six"? A coincidence surely? HeyWayne ( Talk • Contributions ) 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been pointed out — but we can't include anything like that in a Wikipedia article unless it's reported by a reliable source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John Simm as...

message: Where have these two episode titles been confirmed?? - NP Chilla 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 42 is apparently confirmed in the new issue of Doctor Who Magazine.  Human Nature, on the other hand, hasn't been confirmed as a title as far as I know (although it has been confirmed that Cornell's story "has links" to the novel Human Nature, and it appears to be an adaptation of it (many characters with the same names, etc.).  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[42 (Doctor Who)]] and [[Human Nature]] 

message: The footnotes for the early series are currently lumped in with the references for new series 3.  I'd like to split them out, perhaps using the older ref/endnote templates so they can appear as footnotes to the appropriate series.  What would people think of that? Percy Snoodle 10:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you object, shout soon - I'll probably do this tomorrow or Monday. Percy Snoodle 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done.  Notes and references are now separate. Percy Snoodle 11:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, Percy! Nice work. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes and references 

message: I've asked if this page can be semi-protected over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I hope that's okay. I was simply tired of having to remove those rumoured and currently unverifiable titles people keep adding. --GracieLizzie 00:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems perfectly reasonable to me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hope no-one minds but I've requested that this page be semi-protected. 

message: Where has this come from? --GracieLizzie 16:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the press release at Outpost Gallifrey (click here), 'three new episode titles' will be revealed in DWM issue 380. As this isn't officially on sale until 1 March 2007, perhaps we should nominate this article (and any made for Blink (Doctor Who) or Human Nature (Doctor Who episode) (the latter currently redirects to List of Doctor Who serials)) for deletion? Silver Nemesis 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my answer at Talk:The Sound of Drums I think we should redirect them until someone with a hard-copy of the magazine can add a citation. Though if The Sound of Drums is true, then it should be fine at The Sound of Drums not The Sound of Drums (Doctor Who) which would only be needed if wikipedia had another article called "The Sound of Drums". --GracieLizzie 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected The Sound of Drums (Doctor Who) to here. (PS: Doubt the plotline stuff in that article has been confirmed.) Silver Nemesis 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sound of Drums?