Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 7

message: At the end of the preview for the new series that aired at the end of the Christmas special, it looked as if Martha, Adam, the Doctor, and Donna were all standing together.  Just wondering if Adam was confirmed to be in series 4 or if I was mistaken.
And by Adam, I mean Adam from Series 1, he was introducted in the episode "Dalek" and travelled with the doctor for a short time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.240.107 (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall reing Adam in the trailer.  We have heard nothing about Adam returning yet, so I would be surprised if he did appear. StuartDD contributions 20:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that's Ryan Sampson. He's confirmed to be in Series Four and it might be the Sontaran story. --86.2.173.190 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam in Series 4 

message: I have seen the series 4 trailer and if you pause it at 00:17, there seems to be a group of people in UNIT uniform, could this be verified???--Teenage wikian (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the latest DWM states that unit are back - mentioned as episode 5. I think this is on the UNIT page.  For reference it's DWM 390 page 4 - same page as the Sontaran title. StuartDD contributions 19:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNIT return??? 

message: I'd be inclined to start articles for all titled episodes as soon as we have a confirmed date - looking to be Wednesday lunchtime. I'm also in favour of starting Doctor Who: Series 4 (episode X) articles for the few without titles, since we've got plenty to say, really, but I doubt you'd all be in favour of that ;-) But what about titled episodes, then? —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All known titles already exist as redirects back to here. And no, I don't see much use in "Episode X" articles.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think we should start articles for all titled episodes as soon as we have a confirmed date :-) Redirects aren't terribly informative for people wanting to know about upcoming television! —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 08:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We know very little about the episodes just now, so I would be against that.  Not all the Torchwood episodes have a page, and they are airing just now.  I think we should wait till we have a decent level of information - particuarly as people don't seem to like episode articles. StuartDD contributions 08:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have a decent level of information (plot, extracts from DWM...) - why wait? —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the articles would be heavily vandalised.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode articles 

message: I noticed the line "Actor Colin Salmon (known for his role as Charles Robinson in three James Bond films) " in the text, and I was going to remove the James Bond reference as I didn't think it was relevant, but it told me I couldn't edit it. Can someone else remove it. I love Doctor Who (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is relevant, as that is what the actor is primarely known for.  — Edokter • Talk •  21:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I love Doctor Who (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  guest star 

message: The sun has pictures from the last episode of doctor who series four, they show a dalek has shot the doctor (he is lying on the ground with Rose crouching next to him) and a picture of Rose carrying a big gun, it seems the doctor might die, we have pictures but nothing else, for example the title of the episode .--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Link! Honestly though... I hate these spoilers, and we can't use them anyway.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah I agree we can't do anything with the pictures yet, betacommand bot would declare them as orphans and would probably eat anyway.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tragic ending according to the sun 

message: Under Series 4 details on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partners_in_Crime_%28Doctor_Who%29#Series_4_.282008.29
> In the Doctor Who Confidential episode for "The Sound of Drums", Davies stated that it had always 
> been his intention to bring back classic icons of Doctor Who one step at a time: Daleks in series 1, > Cybermen in series 2, and the Master in series 3. He has also stated that he is not finished and will 
> continue reviving villains from the original series.[24]
The Nestene and their Autons also were classics in 1970's Spearhead from Space and 1971's Terror Of The Autons. They appeared again in 2005's episode Rose.
Afnaste (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget the macra!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And? Remember that this is a encyclodepia. The above statement is sourced to an episode of Confidential; Russell T Davies didn't mention any other monsters or aliens, so they cannot be put into the above statement.  — Edokter • Talk •  14:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  classic monsters in new series 

message: Hello, I havn't been editing on wikipedia for a while but i've been suprised to see that the episode articals for series four arn't up yet, they were here by this time last year and I think it would be nice to get them started with a fair amount of information listed in DWM.--Wiggs (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, be bold! Although I don't think we have quite enough information yet to start the articles, and tend to start them as they air (as is currently the case with Torchwood). Also note that the articles with known titles already exist as a redirect to this page.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series Four episode articals 

message: This link is a BBC announcement that the trailer will make a TV/web debut on 29 March at approximately 7 pm. Personally, I think that would be worth adding, but I'm not registered. 90.211.130.242 (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. I've added it.  — Edokter • Talk •  13:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Already corrected.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinema trailer 

message: Hiya; I notice that the semi-protection was just dropped. I'd like to make a number of comments on this: firstly, it's been a lovely three months without constant "DAVROS"/"HARRIET JONES"/"omg THE RANI" comments being added on a daily basis. While we've still had the odd registered account doing this, they've been being blocked and the page's edits have all been clean for at least the last month, really, give or take a few.
We need to remember that the page was protected just after "Voyage of the Damned"... and there'll undoubtedly be a higher inflow of original research/speculation as the new series approaches. The trailers, press screening and media coverage will excite loads of drivel, and I'd say that this is the worst time to unprotect the page! Rumoured titles will float in, it'll generally get messy.
For the next 6 weeks, I'd suggest, the page will be subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption, for example due to media attention, which is one of the official reasons for semi-protection. Few edits will be made to the page from IPs that are valid, don't need heavy adjustment and are original enough that another, registered, editor won't add it better/more properly within two hours. I'd suggest we re-protect, certainly after five IP edits that have to be reverted. Thoughts? —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Semi)-protection is warranted if the article is subject to disruptive editing or vandalism. However, protection should never be applied preventative, and articles are never protected indefenitely. I think three months was long enough. If IP edits prove to be disruptive, I'll happily re-apply protection.  — Edokter • Talk •  22:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still pourin' in... Partners in Crime has already had to be protected. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Semied for 1 week; I'm with Will that it should be indefinite. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of protection 

message: A reminder to users that from series 4 only the Partners in crime actually has a set date yet, I'd wait until the Radio Times has released the Doctor Who special listing all the dates.--Wiggs (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I've been reverting in line with that. Note that the RT doesn't usually list all the dates; also, PiC doesn't actually have a date set yet, the Beeb say it's un-set. —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Beeb actually did give out a date; Newsround gave 5 April as a date (which is common sense really). And yes, we've got potential rescheduling; we have the FA Cup Final on May 17th, then Eurovision the week after. Will (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Dates 

message: Why is it needed? Most users would probably look for "Season X" (or "year Y") instead of "Z Doctor", which makes the navigation very user unfriendly. Not that there are many 4 levels (and not even one 5 level), but even  is better than limit=2. Anyway, I didn't want to change it without consensus because I assumed it was important enough for some editor/s. So what do you think? -Lwc4life (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Every season/series level is a level-3 TOC. If teh limit is changed to to 3, the TOC would span several pages. Just try it in Preview.  — Edokter • Talk •  17:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously I did before writing this. It's not too bad even without a limit at all. It does nothing much except letting you select a season/year. -Lwc4life (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only wish we had a collapsible TOC.  — Edokter • Talk •  13:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tlx|TOClimit|limit<nowiki>=2</nowiki>}} 

message: The latest edition of Doctor Who Magazine states that Partners in Crime has a provisional airdate of 5 April. I'm not a registered user, so cannot add that, but I'll leave it to those of you who can to decide whether you will. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have DWM myself yet - can you give the page number and title of the article for the reference. StuartDD contributions 11:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I've been waiting for the airdate so I can get the Doomsday article on the main page. Will (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doomsday article? Unfortunately I cannot give you the details you want, because I too don't have the issue. It comes out in shops on Thursdays while arriving in subscribers' mail on Tuesdays, as far as I understand it. I have this date on the authority of those who are subscribers. It had been stated by various sources earlier that that issue would reveal the answer. I think the best thing to do would be for someone like StuartDD to find out the page number and article title tomorrow or later and only then add it. Sorry I cannot be more help. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have to wait for someone with DWM to confirm this before putting it in. StuartDD contributions 12:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I meant. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that discovery. Nonetheless, it won't be long before an article of known title and page number has revealed the date, and so "spring 2008" will be amended in the article very soon. I'll leave that to the rest of you. I'd be amazed if it's not up here by the end of the weekend. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec)Hey; Edokter seems to have just replaced unverifiable information. Go on this thread; everyone has complained that there are no copies to be had a day early. Release is confirmed to be tomorrow; the usual people who get day-early copies haven't. It's therefore not verifiable and I recommend removing it. Surely, Shokuwarrior can't be the only person on Earth to have an early copy? And even so, ordinary people like you and me :-) can't verify it for themselves... Any thoughts? —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 14:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with Edokter and assume that has been received by Shokuwarrior, given that he is stating both the title and the page (see here) - a pretty bold move if he doesn't have it. StuartDD contributions 14:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, it's not verifiable. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 14:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not officially yet anyway... but there are plenty of people working in the magazine printing/delivery business...  — Edokter • Talk •  14:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I hit the wrong revision to revert, now fixed. The details Shokuwarrior has given seem trustworthy. However, if it turns out to be wrong, then we know never to trust him in the future, and he his shooting himself in the foot.  — Edokter • Talk •  14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I would go with that - at least until another editor can confirm the DWM material. StuartDD contributions 17:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I mean, good-faith doesn't stretch to believing that only one person in the UK has an embargoed mag! I'm going out now; will you do the honours, Stu? :-) —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SFX is embargoed... you read the forum too much :) Stephenb (Talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They have it at last? That's good. Does it say what DAY though? If not, no wonder all the edits before we weren't sure about just said "April". Damn RTD, I want a date! Ah well. Wait, I said I wouldn't come back here. Well, I've changed my mind, that's all. Just to double-check: does the issue really only confirm April? 129.67.53.232 (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It is? OK. What page and article title (for proper ref formatting)?  — Edokter • Talk •  17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not got my copy yet, but friends have had theirs and the forum's alive with information and quotes from the issue; true, I'm just going by popular opinion ;-) —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 7, Article Title: "Back at Last!"--OZOO 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers - glad you can afford it! —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: the official site says the 5th--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 4 start date 

message: April 5. It might require synthesis (5-11 is the range given), but I doubt the BBC will change the slot. Will (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the official site says the 5th--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: We have a date!

message: *Episode 5 - The Poison Sky
*Episode 9 - The River's Run
Facebook group for DWM... second and third bullet-points under "RECENT NEWS". Can we add them in on the strength of that? —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "You must log in to see this page." Alas... unverifieble.  — Edokter • Talk •  18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I guessed. Fair enough. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the blurb that will be released to DWNews/DWO etc. so you'll be able to get a citable ref soon :) Stephenb (Talk) 19:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been added to the article with the Facebook source being cited. I myself could only find the title for episode 5 there, but anyway, assuming the link is considered citable, even then there's one thing that could do with tidying up: the same url is cited twice but has generated two different footnotes. Even if I was a registered user I wouldn't know how to fix that, but I just thought I'd bring it up. Seriously though, is this source good enough anyway? (I don't have an opinion on that, but felt that the recent edits seemed to be anti-consensus.) 90.211.130.229 (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It's added again, citing DMW #394. Is DWM #394 out yet?  — Edokter • Talk •  00:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not until 3 April, but the Doctor Who News Page vouches for these as the titles. --Goobergunch|? 05:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I just checked the article. The ref doesn't work. 90.211.130.229 (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New titles!! 

message: Hello. I'd like to point out that there is a video on YouTube featuring recorded footage of filming of the new season, and Daleks are present on the set. Should their confirmation be added into the article or should we wait until a proper confirmation is given by the BBC? Good work with this article by the way. Evilgidgit (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably wait until a reliable source has confirmed it.  — Edokter • Talk •  20:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know whether or not the video in question is this one, but it leaves NO room for doubt - not unless the BBC are filming already for post season four stuff, or wasting time on footage they won't use, or someone else has bought, stolen or made their own Daleks to produce this scene, none of which are plausible. The Cartesian philosopher in me forced me to bring up those possibilities :p Nonetheless, I suspect it may be wrong of Wikipedia to spoil the surprise by helping to advertise this Youtube bombshell. 90.211.130.229 (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Nick Briggs. But the "wasting time on footage they won't use" can also be known as "filming a dud scene to hide both the ending and throw people off guard". It's a matter of elimination really: you're not going to recall Sarah Jane, Captain Jack, Rose, Martha, and keep the episode very secret (more secret than "Doomsday") on the Sontarans. It's either the Time Lords or the Daleks. Or a Time Lord/Dalek battle. Ah, but Wiki is not for speculation, so I'll stop. Sceptre (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Its not really a bombshell, most people know who will feature in the finalie, but since the is nothing more then circumstantial evidence wikipedia can not feature it, if Russell T Davies, DWM or The BBC, mentioned Daleks then we could publish it.--Wiggs (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the new trailers from the BBC have already been acted on in the main article, the video cited being a youtube video officially from the BBC, which links to another that is identical but for higher quality (this one). A link to the Realmedia version on the BBC might be more useful because Wikipedia has at least one automated control to remove Youtube links, but as an unregistered user I'll leave such minor matters as that to you lot. The important thing is, the BBC's confession is now described in the Article. ;) 90.211.130.229 (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daleks in Season 4 

message: :::WP:FORUM - quite fun but not allowed! —TreasuryTag—t—c 22:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well-spotted!! —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Little disappointed that it's just the trailer from the end of Voyage of the Damned... DonQuixote (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: You must be looking at a different one; go to the homepage and click on the huge graphic... —TreasuryTag—t—c 22:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New trailer 

message: This trailer is the first official confirmation that season 4 will feature multiple Daleks. I had previously failed to notice the significance of this (see above). I'm bringing it up here in case people won't bother reading what they consider a closed discussion. 90.211.130.229 (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know its sounds stupid but the trailer isn't proof Daleks will even feature in the series, we know they will but it isn't a "fact", I'm sorry we're being so irritating but thats the rules wikipedia run by, if the BBC said "There will be multiple Daleks in this series" then we could add the fact with a reference.--Wiggs (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest 40-second trailer 

message: Should we mention that the missing episodes from the original series exist within the BitTorrent community? That link requires membership to work, but the episodes are there. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 21:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These are, most likely, reconstructions, not the episodes themselves. Reconstructions of all the missing episodes exist, using the soundtracks and screen shots, and they're frequently available on various torrent sites. If you spot one that isn't a reconstruction, but is instead the actual episode, that's definitely major news! --Brian Olsen (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah OK, when you say screen shots, you mean that there stills with the origional soundtrack playing through them? I'll post it if I ever come across a real version of the show... not that I download torrents or anything... ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 22:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. A lot of the missing episodes have "telesnaps" surviving - photos taken of the original broadcast for archival purposes. If official telesnaps don't exist, then publicity photos are used. Soundtracks exist for all the missing episodes, many due to fans tape recording the episodes as they aired. --Brian Olsen (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Episodes from the first few series 

message: At least since January, the running lengths of Real Time, Shada and Scream of the Shalka have each been listed as "6 parts, 60 minutes in total".  
According to the BBC site http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/webcasts/index.shtml which actually hosts the webcasts, the running lengths are 6x12mins, 6x25 mins and 6x15 mins respectively, making 72, 150 and 90 minutes in total.  This also affects individual articles.
Also Death Comes to Time is listed as 5 episodes on the article page, but 13 in the listing (harder to verify since this is no longer on the BBC website, presumably as it would conflict with new series continuity).  Certainly the total running time is wrong in the case of Shada. --79.72.84.214 (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This may count as original research, but the actual running time of Real Time webcast episodes including theme music are 17:43, 10:58, 15:06, 15:53, 15:35 and 14:23, making a total of 90 minutes.  Still, 72 minutes is closer to reality than 60.  Would someone please make the changes? --79.72.84.214 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done the changes --OZOO 09:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webcast running lengths wrong? 

message: I've requested 24 hours' full protection given the amount of cr*p being put into articles at the moment. —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 2/4/08 

message: RTD's comment in the Doctor Who Confidential episode accompanying The Sound of Drums only confirmed that classic villains will still be subject to revival in Series 4, so technically there is no source for its relevance post-2008. Hence, I think the second paragraph ofthe 2009 onwards section is inappropriate. It was appropriate when, not so long ago, material pertaining to series 4 was all on this article, but now it's in the wrong place. Whether it should be moved slightly higher in the article, moved to the series 4 article or deleted is a subject worthy of discussion in its own right, but I do think it is unencyclopaedic as it stands. 90.206.183.218 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a bit out of context now. I'll see if I can fit it in to Doctor Who (series 3) or Doctor Who (series 4).  — Edokter • Talk •  16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the statement to Doctor Who#Adversaries.  — Edokter • Talk •  16:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RTD quotation 

message: Can we include any of this information, since it seems so universal? Is DS reliable? —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the Argus report. Highly speculative. Sceptre (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DigitalSpy? 

message: I know it's been discussed before, but I'm very surprised that season 23 is listed as 4 seperate stories. The article currently reads as if "Mysterious Planet" etc were the titles shown on screen, but it was broadcast as "Trial..." episodes 1 to 14. The working titles were only used behind the scenes in production, and subsequently by fans to make references easier to understand. It's not just a story arc title as was the case with the Key To Time in season 16. Can we make this clearer to avoid confusing people who don't know that?
--PRL1973 (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial of a Time Lord 

message: Hi, I'm a tardis wiki editor, and I was wondering if anyone here had heard of this title for episode 12?  People keep adding it to that wiki. 86.131.241.72 (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is, some people have got their DWMs early, and it says it. Obviously, we can't say anything about it until it gets offically released. --OZOO 11:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also seen the title 'The Time War' used as well, and 'The Return of Rose Tyler', both of which sound crap. My opinion is that people are thinking of what they want to happen, and randomly throwing titles around. And as far as I know, 'The Oncoming Storm' has only been added once, so it's very likely that there's just a collection of fangirls/boys who are desperately anticipating that episode and think that maybe by giving it a title, someone will write an article on it. Oh well. FusionMix 13:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently RTD said somewhere - DWM, I assume - that Episode 12 had a three-word title, and none of those words began with "D" - so "The Return of Rose Tyler" is out. It's also meant to be a spoiler, which The Oncoming Storm wouldn't be; too vague. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dropped a hidden text note there, that might keep well-meaning editors from changing TBA to whatever. Though, given the success with the 'please don't add the date' notes...FusionMix 21:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Oncoming Storm? 

message: Would it be possible/beneficial to have some sort of contents list at the top of the page that would let one jump to a particular season/series?  I know there's the Doctor links, but it might be useful to jump straight to, say Series 3 of the new series or Season 17 of the Classic...
I was thinking of something like this:
Jump to:
(Classic) Season 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
(New) Series 1 2 3 4 
Only all prettily wikified and linked - or is this too complicated to do for little benefit?
Just a thought... (Etron81 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was originally removed as it was redundant to the table of contents the article automatically generates. FusionMix 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I've put this in my sandbox so people could see ow it would look in the article: User:Etron81/Sandbox Etron81 (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally liked it when it was there, but apparently it didn't go over too well with other editors (I thought redundancy was why it was removed, but as I was not part of the debate on it I don't know the finer details). It would also have to be converted to a template before it could be used, as that mess of code really dominates the upper part of the article. Also, if there would be any way to make it smaller? It squashes the text quite a lot in the rest of the intro paragraph. FusionMix 22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it back then for the sole reason it isn't auto-updating like the TOC; ie, everytime a change was made to the table headers, the links would be broken. And it happened a lot back then, and still happens. Unless an editor remebers to updated the hand-made TOC accordingly, (s)he will keep breaking the links. Even now, in the sandbox, half the links don't work. That is my main opposition to this box.  — Edokter • Talk •  22:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I realised this after I put itin my sandbox - I can totally understand this - Etron81 (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series list? 

message: The Press Office now has the date for The Unicorn and the Wasp and, further, the main article for the series contains a citation (reference 52 at the moment) for both episodes of the subsequent two-parter. (The citation is not web-based, but it is official material.) The summary is that there are no gaps yet, i.e. the episodes 6 - 9 are the next four Saturdays. The date for episode 6 has already been included in this article. As an unregistered user I cannot add the information for episodes 7 - 9 to this article. Could some else do it please? 90.206.183.232 (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All done.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 4 air dates 

message: Shall we put about steven moffat taking over from RTD as exec-producer and head writer in the 2009 and beyond section, and shall we remove RTD's comments about him expecting the series to continue in the 'every other year' pattern, as he will not have any say any more?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.49.183 (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes to both. Done it. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A problem: The BBC's Doctor Who page says, in their Steven Moffat update, that there are going to be four specials in 2009, not three. (Right at the end.)  86.136.156.205 (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have conflicting sources then. Oh well, I've taken the latest and updated the section.  — Edokter • Talk •  12:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steven Moffat 

message: This sentence is ambiguous as it could mean "up to 2010", i.e. that he will be replaced for the 2010 series, or 'up to and including 2010'. Could someone who knows disambiguate (sorry) this please? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "through to" usually means including a given frame. But I'll see if I can find better wording.  — Edokter • Talk •  20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "David Tennant is confirmed to star through to 2010" 

message: This log says Rudget (talk · contribs) semi-protected this article  days ago, citing a need to "re-instat[e] undefined period of semi-protection, per the pre-full-protection discussion".  If an undefined period of semi-protection is still appropriate, could someone add a link on this talk page to the place where that "pre-full-protection discussion" took place?  Such transparency is needed so that it is easier to determine when its time to remove the semi-protection.  Thanks.  72.244.201.35 (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, the page was being constantly vandalised by IPs, who kept adding WP:CITE violations. You can check this out in the history. Since hardly any registered users were, semi-p was justified IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protection status 

message: A useful link: Interview with David Tennant, in which he mentions that the Cybermen will feature in the Christmas Special, for which filming has completed. I've updated the page once, but someone reverted apparently without checking the link I put in the citation. --Finbar McBride (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the relevant info is towards the end of Tennant's appearance on the "Listen again", so people might want to skip the earlier part of the interview. --Finbar McBride (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I misread the reference. However, the Cybermen are hardly relevant to this page, plus you removed information regarding the 2009 specials in the process.  — Edokter • Talk •  16:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am taking no side on whether or not the fact that there is nowhere else for the Cybermen information to go would justify its placement here, I do think that an update should be made acknowledging that the special is not still in production. As it stands, the article is inaccurate. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that "production" means more then just filming; editing, mixing, special effects... all fall under production.  — Edokter • Talk •  17:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Radio 2: Cybermen confirmed 

message: A page foud here: Doctor Who Episode Guide, states that the 12th episode of series 4 (Tenth doctor) will be entitled "War on Skaro"  Not sure if anyone can confirm this, I haven't heard any other discussion of this title. -68.83.82.123 • 21:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no-one can confirm this. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 06:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sylvester McCoy site presumably has nothing to do with the actor in question, as for every series it's made up the most ridiculously inaccurate rumours and posted them as fact, rewriting them after the relevant episodes to hide its frequent failures. I genuinely hope that Episode 12 is not "War on Skaro" simply as a slap in the face to such untrustworthy websites. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Name for Episode 12 of Series 4 (10th Doctor) 

message: It's The Stolen Earth -  129.215.149.99 (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title confirmed

message: The latest DWM stated there would be a "proms cutaway" episode - should this be put in the article? 86.154.185.86 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can give us the page-number, author and article title, I'll be happy to do so. I can't afford DWM myself :-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 13:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proms cutaway 

message: I suppose it would involve a lot of recoding, but somewhere along the way the number of stories is off.  It appears that "Trial of a Time Lord" is being counted as four seperate stories, rather than the one story it was publicized as and designed to be at the time.  Also, I find the inclusion of "Shada" a bit suspect, seeing how it was never completed and broadcast.  It isn't included in the official episode count after all, so including it in the official story count seems odd, and would open the floodgates for every story that was in various states of development to be included.
I'm guessing that should the BBC and current production team make a big deal over the first or second 2009 special being the 200th story, we might revisit our numbering system to be more in line?  (The 200th story would be the 1st 2009 special if "Turn Left" is considered a seperate story from "The Stolen Earth/Journey's End", and would be the 2nd 2009 special if the last three episodes are considered one story.
I know there are sources with the inaccurate numbering of including "Shada" and "Trial" as four stories, but I don't know why we should be married to an inaccurate source.  Many of these same sources seem to also include "Dimensions in Time" as the 160th story, so there is precedent for using logic, rather than blindly following an outdated and inaccurate source.  Just my two cents.  Don't you find it odd that nothing was made of "Midnight" being the 200th story, if that were the case, yet there has been word from the producer about one of the specials next year being the 200th, or am I mistaken in that?  Adamsappleturnover (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trail of a Time Lord was the umbrella name for the entire season which does include four stories. I don't believe the BBC is going to make a big fuss over the 200th story. If they do, then we may look at our numbering again.  — Edokter • Talk •  22:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Didn't the BBC advertise Dragonfire as the 150th story?  That only works if Trial is counted as 4. 86.154.185.86 (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: As noted at the start of the article, this follows the numbering of the BBC Region 1 DVD releases of the classic series (which state story numbers on the back). That numbering indicates that Trial is indeed counted as 4 stories, and Shada is in the count as well. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midnight was the 196th story, not 200th 

message: " (qua Head of Drama at BBC Wales) "
What does this mean? for those non-Latin speakers among us! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Usaully it means "per", but the context here got lost on me as well. I've changed it to better understandable English (I hope).  — Edokter • Talk •  23:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qua? 

message: The current table seems to show the final two episodes of series four are showing on the same night. Really..? Tphi (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We simply don't know yet, that's why we leave it like this for the time being.  — Edokter • Talk •  14:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  two hour finale on same night? 

message: This page gives the air date of Journey's End as July 5. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All done.  — Edokter • Talk •  13:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another air date 

message: It's somehow transmuted in the article to Friday 27, which is wrong. Could someone registered please fix it? 90.210.193.126 (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air date for The Stolen Earth is wrong 

message: If this is true, it's the first time the xmas special name has been revealed before the end of episode 13, but I have no trouble believing that ... once we have a source. The reference to the 08/09 specials as series 5 and the 2010 episodes as series 6 is not only equally unsourced, but is also contrary to various sources' description of Moffat's 2010 takeover as series 5. It is no surprise that Ghosts In The Machines has been tagged for speedy deletion, although actually that appears to be because of copyright infringement instead of a lack of sourcing. Can anyone source it? There are issues with that article, such as it not mentioning the confirmed Cybermen, or it making an unsourced claim about Mickey, but for this talk page the issue is the following: it should not be listed in this article without some source. (Wow, for once the policy is actually on my side, utterly unambiguously!) 90.210.193.126 (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. No sources, so as far as we're concerned it doesn't exist. A quick search on Google for "Doctor Who" and "Ghosts in the Machines" returns only a few hundred results, with this article being top. I've nominated it for deletion, as there isn't really a CSD criteria that it fails, but it should be an easy-delete. Have also removed it from this list, and Ckatz has deleted the speculative series five article (per CSD G4). TalkIslander 19:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it does turn out to be true, given what we know about the episode, it could just have been a good guess. It's not like any of the Christmas special titles have been subtle - they've just had the advantage of being filmed later. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ghosts In The Machines]] - really? 

message: "David Tennant is confirmed to star until 2010"? Most people would read that as "up to and including 2010", but AIUI he's not confirmed beyond the 2009 specials. So shouldn't it be "until the end of 2009" or something? 86.132.139.228 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he is confirmed to star in Series 5, which is due to air in 2010.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is he? If so, the Andrew Marr show citation in the article needs to be updated. However, I'm not so sure such confirmation has been given. While the article Tenth Doctor does say he "has been confirmed" for series 5, there is no source given. Instead, a  tag has been added. Do you have a source? If so, thanks for the news! 90.210.193.126 (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I didn't see the Andrew Marr interview, but if Tennant himself says he hasn't been asked to continue in 2010 that's pretty definitive: he is not (yet) confirmed for 2010. Nor does the source currently cited in the article for the claim that he is support that claim. --Jenny 14:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Until 2010? 

message: Is there a source for this? It seems odd that it would be 5.X as Series 5 is a ways off yet, and it's not being produced in the Series 5 production blocks... Etron81 (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point... I just followed last year's production codes. Those were filmed just before the following series. The 2008 xmas special was filmed right after series 4.  — Edokter • Talk •  18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Or just S.X and S.01 etc., but that's a bit similar to 5.X visually. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  All OR... suggest we leave it blank for now until DWM provides some data.  — Edokter • Talk •  18:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me - I'm not sure what woudl make sense anyway! Etron81 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: On the RT forum, Gary Russell said its code was 4.14 -- the logistics being that it was the final episode shot in the series four production cycle. --Aderack (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  5.X code for 2008 Christmas Special 

message: In Journey's End, the Doctor regenerated. At the first time, he didn't change his physical shape. But we have seen him shot dead, the regneration process similar to that of the Ninth to Tenth Doctor and of the Master and the regeration energy output leaving him (and affecting his tank hand etc.) Therefore the Doctor has used up another of his regenerations: he now has only two more lives left! It is incorrect data, if the further movies Tennant is going to do are listed under the title Tenth Doctor, as he isn't the Tenth Doctor anymore, but now the Eleventh Doctor!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.196.69.48 (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As Tennant himself said in that episode's Confidential, it is up to future writers to decide if the Doctor used up one of this regenerations in that scheme.  Any supposition on our part would be OR, unless we can find a source in which RTD, Moffatt, or someone else like that explicitly states that Tennant is the 11th Doctor. Etron81 (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, it could be argued that he's not really the Eleventh Doctor because he hasn't changed his form or personality.  If the producers go that route and decide that he's used up one of his regenerations in Journey's End, then he's just the Tenth Doctor with one less regeneration left. DonQuixote (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, he's not the 11th doctor, just because Russell wanted to tease us all with a regeneration cliffhanger in his grand finale - and it would be very confusing to have this site say so like it was a fact. PaulHammond (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eleventh Doctor 

message: It appears there will be only three specials in 2009, not four as we had previously. Julie Gardner, in this Daily Telegraph interview, is counting the 2008 Xmas episode as one of the "four specials." Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the guardian recently reported that there'd be five. I think it's best just to leave it as it is, since anything we say contradicts at least six other sources :P ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 17:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late, I've already leapt in and changed the article. Feel free to revert me; it does seem to contradict the Guardian and DWM which said there'd be four in 2009. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: That looks fine to me. I guess all we can do at the moment is just mention the different reports; we can't come to a firm conclusion yet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I've reverted. We can only report what was reported - which was a mish-mash. So we comment on the mish-mash. Trying to value different reliable sources differently is original rsearch. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 10:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, and according to The Guardian and its interview with Russel T. Davies (showrunner) there will be five specials. And neither Gardner nor Davies was clear about whether this Xmas counted. As the article stands, explaining the confusion, we know it is 100% accurate because it simply says "X said this. Y said this." As soon as you start implying that X has more value than Y as a source, we're getting into the territory of original research. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 11:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit late to weigh in, but you're all assuming that "the first" refers to the first of the one-hour specials.  This is not necessarily the case (unless she speaks in prose). I think she simply missed a "but". As it stands, I agree with the above poster, there are very few definitive sources, and this latest quote isn't one of them. DWM tomorrow may be clearer! Stephenb (Talk) 19:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of specials in 2009 

message: DWM states the new Christmas special is part of series 4, would it be OR to assume its production code is 4.14?--Wiggs (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm - somone else mentioned above that Gary Russel stated the same thing on the RT forum - I couldn't find that post though... Etron81 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I say give it code 4.X2. It is stated to be part of Series 4 because it is made during Series 4 production.  — Edokter • Talk •  12:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production code for Christmas special 

message: There is an error with the reference "" in the Specials (2009) section.  The reference section states "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named specials1" 86.154.185.86 (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference error 

message: Not sure why this article is locked... but it should be pointed out in the 2005 season that some of the characters from Torchwood show up, especially since the 2006 season claims to be laying the groundwork for Torchwood. Gwen's ancestor and Tosh, as well as Capitan Jack all show up -- I am still re-watching so I might come up with some additional sightings. 
12.219.28.217 (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torchwood seeding 

message: there seems to be a bit of a revert-fest going on with the production "codes" for the latest season of Who.
It seems that 4.2 and 4.3 keep getting flipped because one was filmed before the other.
I think we can't treat these particular codes as official production codes - they are miles different to the codes used for classic Who (4A, ZZZ etc).  4.2 should signify the story that screened second, not the one that was made second.  It makes no sense to have 4.3 listed before 4.2 Mmm commentaries (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doctor Who Magazine's Series 4 Companion says  4.3 (Fires of Pompeii) and 4.2 (Planet of the Ood) are the "original codes used during production." I don't see how that makes them "miles different" from the classic series. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, the codes used during production are indeed "official production codes", in the same sense that the classic series' letter-based codes were.  And if the DWM Special says that "Fires of Pompeii" and "Planet of the Ood" are 4.3 and 4.2 respectively, we have to go with that.  The list also contains broadcast dates and the story numbers, both of which reflect the broadcast order.  I don't see how having 4.3 before 4.2 is any different from having the serials in Season 26 be listed as 7N, 7Q, 7M, 7P instead of 7M, 7N, 7P, 7Q.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the old letter-format codes didn't say anything about order, whereas the current 4.2 system says "the second episode of the fourth series". Can't you see that's a problem? DBD 01:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the production team intended, until the last second, when it was decided the narrative would fit together better in that respect. In fact, Steven Moffat had to rename "Forest of the Dead" because its original title, "Forest of the Night", could be confused with "Midnight". Episodes get switched around all the time; cf "The Glass Ballerina" and "Further Instructions". Sceptre (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) In season 2, Army of Ghosts was the seventh episode produced, IIRC. We've got multiple occasions in the other sections where episodes aired out of production order - most notably, seasons 12, 17, 19, 25, and 26. I have the companion too; Pawnthreeking is correct. Sceptre (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I've added a note, which I hope will clarify the matter.  It's somewhat confusing that we use both the old  system and cite.php, but I suppose I see the distinction between explanatory notes and references. If anyone wants to polish my wording, please feel free. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Though the first scenes shot were for "Rose". Sceptre (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Were they?  Perhaps I'm thinking of the first scenes shot with Christopher Eccleston (which I think were the bits with the space pig).  My copy of the Series One Companion isn't accessible at the moment to check.  But the point stands. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Who S4 - production "codes"