Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 6

message: According to some fans whose Series 3 boxsets shipped early, on the commentary track for Last of the Time Lords David Tennant says Time Crash takes place during the last few minutes of LotTL. Just after Martha leaves, and just before the Titanic/TARDIS crash. Could someone with a copy of the Boxset confirm this? GracieLizzie 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When [[Time Crash]] takes place

message: Someone added this, but I removed it because it doesn't really go.  But should we have this?  I think it was an interactive game rather than a proper story, but what do others think. StuartDD contributions 09:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say, put it in. It is a true 10th Doctor episode, and it was on TV, somewhat...  — Edokter • Talk •  15:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was an episode per say - it was more of a game than anything.  StuartDD contributions 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was neither a spoof or crossover, had a plot and fits within the continuity. Just my opinion.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't wont to add this, although to be honest if we are having Infinite Quest then sure.--Wiggstar69 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not exactly comfortable with it, but as it was produced by the BBC, it doesn't really belong in the same section as a spoof and a cross-over.  StuartDD contributions 19:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There are spoofs created by the BBC, I'd say it was real Doctor Who, but not 'in series' simmilar with TIQ--Wiggstar69 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Attack of the Graske]]

message: I'm in the middle of tidying up the citations — there's more to do — and I noticed this quotation from Julie Gardner: "I'm going to tease you by telling you there is a classic monster that returns, but that's as far as I'm going to go."  Surely she was talking about the Sontarans, whose presence was revealed after that interview?  I'm inclined to remove the quote (leaving the RTD one, which may have a different referent).  Anyone object? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, she may have been refering to something else, but I don't think we need it in.  StuartDD contributions 20:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's difficult to say as the reference to a 'classic monster' would suggest that an individual monster is returning such as Davros or the Myrka. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julie Gardner quote needed? 

message: I've finally finished cleaning up the citations: I checked every Doctor Who Magazine reference, and separated them by the article which had the relevant information.  I also found that a lot of references to the BBC Doctor Who website were inaccurately credited to BBC News, which is a completely different branch of the BBC.  Please don't confuse bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/ with news.bbc.co.uk/! Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations cleaned up 

message: This page started as a list of the DW serials and it remains that until we get to the series four section. This area has now become a receptical for all sorts of info about the fourth series. Some confirmed and some not. Do we really need a list of all the guest stars? We don't list them for any of the other years. I feel that all of this info about season four should be moved to its own page as it detracts from what the pages function is and should remain. However if the consensus of the DW wikiproject is that this is okay then I will go along with it I am just posting this as food for thought. MarnetteD | Talk 22:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has it's place here... for now. At least until all the information can be moved to their respective episode articles.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that was before I saw the entire guest cast listed. I agree we should condense the Series 4 section to the most important, and possibly move the rest to Doctor Who, or a seperate article.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is starting to get away from what this page is about 

message: The third season (i.e. 2007 season) is NOT just about the Face of Boe's message and Mr. Saxon. There is a third arc involving the Doctor's recovery after losing Rose. it is referenced continually in the episodes, and by the production crew in the DVD commentaries, interviews, etc etc. If this is "too much detail" then there should be NO reference to any of the arcs. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with the detail about Rose, but some of the other things you added do not need to be here.  StuartDD contributions 11:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season three synopsis 

message: Can someone tell me what  does to the page? StuartDD contributions 11:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See .  — Edokter • Talk •  12:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. StuartDD contributions 12:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this do? 

message: I know that it is unconfirmed that he will be a companion, but we do know he will return, so should we put this under "guest stars"? StuartDD contributions 13:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guest stars, not companions. The BBC source for Billie's return says three (Tate, Agyeman, Piper), and I'm sure they'd mention Barrowman in the list as it's common knowledge. Will (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I know the source says Three - hence the "unconfirmed that he will be a companion".  However, we know that he will feature, so should we put that in under the guest stars section?  We don't have to state that he will be a companion - we can just state that he will feature. StuartDD contributions 15:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hm... it is almost definite he will appear, although there hasn't been any reliable source for this, a small internet site had an interveiw with barrowmen saying it was definite - but as far as I was aware it was not being taken as reliable from here and OG.--Wiggstar69 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack 

message: How come the primarily American term "season" is being used instead of "series" for Doctors 1-7? Miremare 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most sites, such as BBC's Classic Episode Guide, OG, and A Brief History, use the term "season" for the classic series. Will (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so they do. Cheers, Miremare 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season/series 

message: What is "The Cartmel Masterplan"? - I've never really heard of it.  Is that the "far more than another Time Lord" part that never came through? (apologies if this counts as forum talk, but we should explain what it is) StuartDD contributions 11:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amusingly, there is an article: Cartmel Masterplan... But it's a misnomer - there never really was a "masterplan" according to Cartmel (in some recent interview - the Survival DVD IIRC) just some ideas that were knocking around, mostly by Marc Platt and Ben Aaronovitch, about the Doctor's origins.  These ideas were expanded upon in the NA Lungbarrow.  It you ever hear the term "Loombollocks" you'll know where it comes from now :-) Stephenb (Talk) 11:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was no plan, then should we have this information at all? StuartDD contributions 12:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO no, especially if the Doctor is described as the tautological "engimatic enigma"! Stephenb (Talk) 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Cartmel Masterplan" 

message: Following up on the FLC, a minor point raised by User:SatyrTN was "Is Fire on the Set really necessary on this list?".  So I'll put this up for discussion - do we really need that section? StuartDD contributions 14:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel that we do. A simple paragraph under "production" would suffice, IMO.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would go for that myself - it isn't important enought to warrant a separate section. StuartDD contributions 15:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the header.  — Edokter • Talk •  15:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire on set 

message: It strikes me that, whereas we're currently using (correct me if I'm wrong) completely arbitrary codes to identify each serial, there are actually official BBC Catalogue numbers (see here). Would it not be wise to use those? The 'arbitrary' codes used onthis page are in fact probably more logical than those from the catalogue, so perhaps both should be included? Just want to see what other people's opinion is on this... TheIslander 16:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are including unnoficial spoofs which most people do not count as connon.--Wiggs (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, clearly - everything is assigned a catalogue number. That doesn't explain why we shouldn't have the relevant numbers here, though. TheIslander 18:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catalogue Numbers 

message: A few people have tried to start the series 4 table.  Before we get into edit wars, should we have it? StuartDD contributions 19:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only saw one attempt so far. I think we should hold off until we have at least half the episode titles.  — Edokter • Talk •  20:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a couple of unregistered users have tried it, and another quite a while back.  I agree that we should wait, we know only one title and very few episode numbers. StuartDD contributions 20:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that now isn't the time, although I don't know if we need to wait for half the episode titles.  Three or four titles would be good, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Josiah, for what it's worth. -- Kjet 22:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have 3 titles now (Partners in Crime, Planet of the Ood, and The Sontaran Stratagem) and 2 possible ones (TUATW, The Year That Never Was/Mysterious Creature). Should we get started? -- DC 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do the eps 2 and 7 titles come from?  — Edokter • Talk •  16:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The series 4 table 

message: Can someone give an accurate episode count, without CIN/AOTG/TIQ/TC? I'm counting about 745... Will (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really dont feel we should have AOTG and TIQ on the main table, when it comes to the episode count it makes things a lot more complicated. And They are really considered as real episodes.--Wiggs (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I get 737/1/2/2 from List of science fiction film and television series by lengths. Will (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get 736 without shada - assuming of course that TVM is counted as the film.  Note that I used Resurrection OTD as 2 episodes. StuartDD contributions 15:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If we choose to not ocunt shada there will have to be a footnote similar to AOTG and TIQ.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggstar69 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't not counting shada - I just found that the only was to match the total was to exclude it.  Either we have it in the count, or we extend the curent note to explain that it is not counted. StuartDD contributions 11:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode count 

message: two references have gone missing in the production table.  They were multi-referenced, so I assume the initial data went in the last update.  Can someone please put the old references in for these. StuartDD contributions 11:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found them in an old revision.  In future, can those adding new DWM material make sure they don't delete the old references as they are probably needed for other things as well. StuartDD contributions 11:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing references 

message: Can anyone who got DWM 388 please check what episodes were being filmed.  An IP put this edit in, but I cannot verify that. StuartDD contributions 13:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DWM 388

message: has started the series 4 table.  Although there is a lot of detail, I still don't think we have enough to start the table.  Also, we can't assume that the last two episodes will be a two parter unless we have a source. StuartDD contributions 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its fairly obvious that 4.12 and 4.13 are going to be two parters. I think we should have the first half of S4 on there (seeing as we know nothing of anything past 4.7). DC 11:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that was actually an assumption... We don't know yet if it is a double-parter; it coutld be a three parter...  — Edokter • Talk •  11:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence why I removed the story numbers until further notice while I was reorganising. Will (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's kept hidden, I see nothing wrong with it. Reduces the work we do later. Will (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, should we have it in the article?  Is there enough information to have it, or should we leave it in the hidden text? StuartDD contributions 12:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Series 4 table 

message: Today's Daily Mail had an interview with RTD, so be prepared for numerous IP edits citing rumours etc with this interview. StuartDD contributions 11:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be prepared for a few IP edits 

message: Why are we implementing a serial count that differs from both Outpost Gallifrey and the DW Reference Guide? Giving TIQ numer 192 is now both unsourced and inconsistent with other sources. I say we follow the DW Ref Guide and put 192 back to "Voyage of the Damned".  — Edokter • Talk •  14:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, TIQ as well as the CIN episodes are only there for completion, they are not counted as actual serials.--Wiggs (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The number "737", on the show's article, only works if TIQ is included. Will (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't get what you mean by "737" its 736?--Wiggs (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the 737 on the main page counted TVM as 1 episode. StuartDD contributions 15:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TVM is one episode, I think the 737 was counting TIQ, which I don't believe should count other then on the list of serials as an unumbered episode. I canged it to 736, is that wrong?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggstar69 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the 737 on THIS page was for TIQ, the 737 on the Doctor Who page was for TVM. StuartDD contributions 15:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The episode count as of July 8, 2006 was 723, which was the official number given as a world record. I think that yes, TVM is included in the count. Will (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, should we have that in the episode count, or keep it separate as the "one movie"? StuartDD contributions 15:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "737 episodes (including two movies)". T5D and DW are similar in length anyway. Will (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd go with TVM as one episode.  Just one question, what are the 4 charity specials.  I count 3 - CIN, TC and DIT. StuartDD contributions 16:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fourth is Curse of Fatal Death. Will (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that really count? - it was a spoof. StuartDD contributions 16:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, A Fix with Sontarans and DiT didn't really make sense either, but are included. Will (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serial 192 

message: I've just noticed that TV.com has production codes listed for all the main episodes of the new series - How realiable a source is TV.com for these sorts of things?  If reliable, should these be added to this list and their relevent pages? (Etron81 (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TV.com is edited by users like wikipedia is edited by users like us so its not reliable, however we have used it before.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The codes here are the ones used in the encyclopedia I have - and I think they are the official ones. StuartDD contributions 19:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which Encyclopedia is that?  Perhaps that could be a more reputable source (Etron81 (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the encyclopedia I mentioned here StuartDD contributions 15:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Err, *coughcough*, look at the section I started above, entitled 'Catalogue Numbers'. Nice how that got mostly ignored... I am the editor for the TV.com guide, and, if you look at that not-entirely-invisible section just above, you'll see the official source for them. TheIslander 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't those codes are official, I think those are numbers for selling/ ordering purposes. StuartDD contributions 16:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're more official than the codes you cite, bearing in mind that they're from the BBC itself, and not a third-party encyclopedia. I'll be adding them in shortly if there are no further objections. TheIslander 15:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're both official. However, TV.com uses catalogue codes (which are not actually production codes), we use the production codes used on the BBC epiode pages.  — Edokter • Talk •  15:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we can include both for thw new series? (Etron81 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Series Production Codes 

message: Following an IP adding a "possible title", I feel the need to tell people what DWM stated.  On page 4 of the latest DWM, it states that there is a hidden title somewhere.  Any title from page 4 other than the sontaran one (which is specifically stated as the title) is just speculation and should be reverted. StuartDD contributions 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a bit to far.  Some IP's can give useful contributions.  Admitedly, not that many, but Indefinate protection is still too far. StuartDD contributions 19:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, not just is it too far, but it actually goes against the rules for protection - it strikes me that the level of vandalism from IPs to this page is well, well below that that would warrent protection. TheIslander 22:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note for users 

message: Should these be on this list at all as they're covered in Doctor Who spin-offs? (Etron81 (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Doctor Who TV stories that are (co-)produced by the BBC should be on the list.  — Edokter • Talk •  21:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the webcasts?  They're not TV stories as such (although I gather Shalka was available via the "Red Button") (Etron81 (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure - but I think it was just made available on the web.  I'd argue for the TV broadcasts section to stay - but I'm not sure about the webcasts. StuartDD contributions 11:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be my inclination as well - Keep the TV broadcasts, but let the Spinoff list cover the webcasts(Etron81 (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The webcasts were produced/commissioned by the BBC as well. I think they should stay in, as they are visual stories.  — Edokter • Talk •  16:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: All bar Shalka were produced primarily as audio stories though... (Etron81 (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other Stories" 

message: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/12/18/51596.shtml states that the Sontaran story is episodes 5 and 6. I don't know how good the source was for the episodes having production codes 4.4 and 4.5. Does that actually mean episodes 4 and 5? If so, the two conflict, and *I* think the newer one better suits WP:RS, but maybe you'd disagree. 85.92.173.186 (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that does present a bit of a problem... Could someone check DWM again? Either DWM or the BBC has an error.  — Edokter • Talk •  20:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does <I>DWM</I> class anything as production code 4.0 (ie. as in Voyage of the Damned)? 212.32.68.78 (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DWM 390 states "Series 4 Episode 4 is entitled The Sontaran Strategem". StuartDD contributions 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope, the BBC was wrong! They have corrected the website.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) The page has been changed. It now says episode 4 - see here. StuartDD contributions 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I said... :)  — Edokter • Talk •  21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sontaran Strategem 

message: Could someone re-add Jacks apperance in series 4, as it has been removed. It is cited in Jack Harkness in cite 13. Willow177 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain Jack Harkness In Series 4 

message: In the same article in Doctor Who Magazine that the sontaron and opening story titles wre announced, it said there was a hidden 3rd story title. The only one that looked like it to me was Streets of London.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.168.237 (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, but putting a title in for this would be specualation. StuartDD contributions 16:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden Title in DWM' 

message: from blocking we can comfirm they are 2.3 and 2.7 81.145.242.74 (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, I've added the numbers with a source - brief history of time travel.  It has Planet of the Ood as episode 3, and gives the other episode in the block as "episode 51" - therefore series 4 episode 7 - as the same block as planet of the Ood.  StuartDD contributions 16:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  planet of ood and TUATW numbers 

message: The Series 4 table is pretty filled by now (if 'A Brief History of Time' is a reliable source... where do they get their information?). Shall we unhide it?  — Edokter • Talk •  17:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wait until we get more reliable sources.  Remember, this isn't a journal where the goal is to be the first to report the news.  We have ample time to get all the facts straightened out--till March or April. DonQuixote (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Brief History is a reliable source.  I'm not sure about the table - but I think we have enough information to unhide it now.  StuartDD contributions 19:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then, I'll unhide it. It has more info then the Series 2 table of Torchwood anyway.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably being vey pernickity - but don't we have to reference the material in the table as well as referencing it below? StuartDD contributions 19:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Preferably yes. Best is to move the refs to the Series 4 table and leave ref aliases in the productin table.  — Edokter • Talk •  20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 4 table 

message: A lot of references have bee replaced with "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name cannot be a simple integer, use a descriptive title" - has something gone wrong with wiki or is it someone vanalising the reference templates? StuartDD contributions 22:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's happening all over the place. Please hold off editing until it is solved.  — Edokter • Talk •  22:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: it's been fixed now. StuartDD contributions 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep... One of the devs f***** up. I purged the page to get rid of the errors.  — Edokter • Talk •  22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on? 

message: Let me preface this by saying that I am an American and everything I know about first broadcasts is second hand at best, and if I'm belaboring the obvious, I apologize in advance. Did every story listed here have original transmission on BBC One, or did some of those little specials debut elsewhere? If the first is correct, would it not be a good idea to say so in the introductory text? Ted Watson (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They all did unless stated otherwise - the only two to have first broadcasts ausland - "The Five Doctors" and the Paul McGann film - have their broadcasts expressed in their articles quite clearly. - NP Chilla (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should there be a note here as well? Etron81 (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but I think the dates for origonal broadcast for Five DOctors and TVM are the american ones. StuartDD contributions 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 5 Docs was first tx in Chicago on 23 Nov 83 and the TVM was first tx in Canada on 12 May 96 (US tx was 14 May) Etron81 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked, and those are the dates down on this page. StuartDD contributions 20:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the original poster's question was if we should note the channel of original transmission.  In this case I think a statment at teh top saying "All episodes were originally broadcast on BBC One unless other wise stated" and adding a note for 5 Docs and TVM stating their original channels in the US and Canada might be a good idea Etron81 (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea, but I don't think we really need to do that here. StuartDD contributions 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to nit-pick, but until April 1964 when BBC2 started, part-way through "The Keys of Marinus" in Hartnell's first season, there was no "BBC One", just "BBC tv"! -- Arwel (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original venue(s)? 

message: episode 6 + 8, can be comfirmed as written by Tom MacRae and James Moran by blocking, but the order can not.81.145.242.74 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give us the source for this information?  — Edokter • Talk •  17:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  block 6 

message: The title of the second part to the Sontaran story.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaxsonUnit (talk • contribs) 22:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We must have a verifyable source, either in print or online, before we can put either title in the article.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: These may well be the titles, but we cannot add them without a reliable source (WP:V WP:RS) -as I was trying to tell you last night.  If you know of a reliable source, then please add it, and then we can put it in. 14:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cloning Machine 

message: For Children in need and Attack of the graske... the DW encyclopedia (So comprehensive that it contain's a list of things which AREN'T in it) gives them the codes CiN and AotG respectively. 86.12.126.161 (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true.  I think those should be the codes we have on this page, but I'll wait and see what other users think. StuartDD contributions 20:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are those actual production codes or just the identifying codes used in the book? (more akin to abbreviations or shorthand than official production codes) - I only flipped through the book in a shop, so I can't check myself Etron81 (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Admitedly, there's nothing to suggest that they are official codes.  However, the one for the episodes are the ones we use (1.1 etc). StuartDD contributions 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codes 

message: Seems this article is subject to an endless stream of false or unconfirmed titles... Maybe semi-protection is a good idea? Tom walker (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can ask, and see what the admins think. StuartDD contributions 16:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some forums are widely speculating (but what else is new?) If it gets too bad, I'll semi-protect the article for a week.  — Edokter • Talk •  18:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in a piece of hidden text saying "Do not add titles or broadcast dates without a reliable source" - not that will do much good. StuartDD contributions 18:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection? 

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: It's a given that they are the writers of Alice Troughton's block as everyone else has their blocks set in stone leaving two places and one block. The Iceman2288 (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but who writes which episode? Until that is clear (and sourced), we cannot put them in the episode list.  — Edokter • Talk •  00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And, of course, poor Tom MacRae's episode has been bumped because Russell T Davies now considers its tone and trappings too similar to another story from this season... Blaine Coughlan (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Greenhorn & Tom MacRae's placing 

message: Hmmm, this looks a little messy - I think there needs to be some sort of clean-up. There are two tables for the up coming series - some effort should be made to merge them.  Because the info is about a future series, if their is conflicting information between the two tables (and both sets of info come from valid/reliable sources) this should be removed from the merged table and instead be discussed in a paragraph. These are just my thoughts, what do you guys think? Tinkstar1985 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The production table provides production info not found in the Series 4 table, because it cannot be attributed to a certian episode yet. Once all information becomes available, the production table is eventually going to disappear.  — Edokter • Talk •  14:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 4/production tables 

message: The title of the Agatha Christie episode.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaxsonUnit (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid this is uncomfirmed so can not be put up 89.241.171.153 (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this does fit, and a picture of a wasp was seen in the series 4 trailer, but as the bbc have not confirmed this, we cannot put this up--Teenage wikian (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with unsourced material, but it might be interesting to note that the Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia notes that if another volume is to be made for 4X onwards (it only goes up until 3.13) then it shall include entries on various words (from Series 4 / Voyage of the Damned). One of these words was unicorn, and seeing as there was a wasp in the "Coming soon..." trailer it seems pretty much the title -- however, it would be better to wait until an official Doctor Who source such as DWM or the BBC Website confirms it, or otherwise it will only encourage people to add more titles, presumabely false ones. Xdt (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's not the point... as long as it was unverifyable, it cannot be put on Wikipedia.  — Edokter • Talk •  21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I suppose fan speculation usually turns out to be correct. So did you enjoy last year's The Oncoming Storm? StuartDD contributions 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Back on topic, please... see the talkpage guidelines. TheIslander 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry.  Anyway, as Edokter says - wikipedia requires a source for information, so we cannot allow information in that is simply fans guessing. StuartDD contributions 08:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Take a good look at WP:CBALL, and then WP:V for good measure. TalkIslander 13:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  also, check out WP:RS and the example of last year given above. StuartDD contributions 13:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I shall certainly take a close look at that in due course - in return, please take a look at WP:POINT. TalkIslander 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Information goes in ONCE it has a reliable source.  Information doesn't go in with out one untill a reliable source states otherwise.  This did not have a source, so could not go in till there was one.  Now there is one, it can go in.  The End. StuartDD contributions 10:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to let people know -  was the requested new name of  - and he didn't pay to much attention to the rules either. StuartDD contributions 10:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Unicorn and the Wasp 

message: keeps adding this title for episode 10.  Do we have a reliable source for this title? StuartDD contributions 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Omg! (Oh my gosh) he has a similar username to Porcupine's (Rambutan)old user name! Could he be a sock puppet? Although i doubt it is him--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. If anything, Porcupine was/is very vigilant toward unsourced information. This is probably an attempt to discredit him.  — Edokter • Talk •  13:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is this Porcupine people keep talking about? Anyway the title has been removed, unless anyone does wants to answer Stuart Douglas's question then I think the discussion is closed. It is for me.--ShadowpuppetKing (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: , he used to be known as Rambutan , of course I was only joking I would never accuse Porcupine of being a sock puppet or a vandal unless he was doing something very wrong. Back to the point just delete this episode 10 title I can't find anything about it on the offical bbc website, might check the latest DWM later on--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the user tried two references - one from a fan forum that looked to be speculating based on wikipedia edits, and the other from a site that appeared to be suggesting titles. StuartDD contributions  —Preceding comment was added at 14:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have - and told the user (see his talk page) that sources must be reliable.  StuartDD contributions 16:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Apperantly he was blocked for having a similar username to Porcupine's old username, his name is now Shadowpuppetking.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Correct StuartDD contributions 18:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchmaker? 

message: Has an episode number been confirmed for this title, or was it just the title? StuartDD contributions 10:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the episode is "Midnight" and it is/was filmed as part of block 6, but the episode number was NOT confirmed. Stephenb (Talk) 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is certainly A title in series 4, that is certainly confirmed - if you mean "it shouldn't be in the series table" by "it shouldn't be on here" then yes: I have just removed it from that table; however, it's fine to be in the article Stephenb (Talk) 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why completely removed?  It's a citable episode title. Stephenb (Talk) 20:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No, it IS completely citable, we just don't know which episode number it is yet.  Don't confuse the table with the article. There's no problem with your signing - why are you asking? Stephenb (Talk) 21:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There IS absolute proof! Stephenb (Talk) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That makes no sense at all.  DWM says that there will be an episode called "Midnight" in the new series. This is taken as a citable reference and so can be used in the article. I think you are trying to be disruptive.  Please stop it.  Stephenb (Talk) 21:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There is proof, and the citation is in the article.  I haven't accused you of changing the article to remove it either.  What is your point, exactly?  You aren't expressing it very clearly!  Stephenb (Talk) 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an extremely confusing discussion. Stephen, you're completely correct; it's a perfectly valid piece of information, properly cited. Don't let him get to you! --Brian Olsen (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Quite right! My apologies. The use of the name "Saxon" equated you in my mind with the male Saxon from the show. --Brian Olsen (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not offended, I like the character a lot. - SaxonUnit (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Looking again, the posts weren't really off-topic, but they're certainly angsty, to say the least... TalkIslander 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have DWM now, and it states "Russell also divulged the name of the episode that was hidden in his production Notes cloumn in DWM 390 - it's one of the episodes in Block 6, and it's called Midnight" - therefore we have a source for the title, therefore it can go into the article. The End. StuartDD contributions 10:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midnight 

message: If we replaced our citation for Alex Kingston with http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2008/01/24/52354.shtml we would also be able to say that Colin Salmon is in the same episode. I'm not going to register just to add this, but I thought I'd make sure it's brought to people's attention. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we not already say that? I can't imagine that we don't!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colin Salmon 

message: The intro reads:</br>
This is a list of Doctor Who television serials and episodes. As of 25 December 2007, 738 individual episodes, including two telemovies, of Doctor Who have been aired, encompassing a total of 192 stories. Additionally, four charity specials and one animated serial have been aired, and two short sequences, "A Fix with Sontarans" and "Attack of the Graske", were produced and involved the interaction of a viewer - the former was a segment of Jim'll Fix It, while the latter was a fully interactive adventure.
Two questions: 1) What is the second telemovie?  There's only one listed - I would change it to one but this may have been previously discussed. 2) Why the bolding of the numbers?  Again, I would unbold them, but may have been discussed.  Finally, shouldn't we link to the A Fix (and Graske) article(s) in the intro, rather than referring to Jim'll Fix It? Stephenb (Talk) 08:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The two tele-movies are The Five Doctors and Doctor Who (1996 film).  I don't know why the numbers are bolded, and I think Fix and graske are not linked because they are linked in the main list. StuartDD contributions 08:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, of course, The Five Doctors it is, but I forgot and it was listed as part of a season so didn't notice when I scrolled down - thanks. :) I suggest we unbold the numbers, though, since it looks a little "forceful", as if the article is insisting that it is so! Stephenb (Talk) 08:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd agree with unbolding the numbers, I don't really see the need. StuartDD contributions 10:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Is the 5 Docs a telemovie when it's partly recorded on videotape? By those criteria, shouldn't the Christmas Specials be called telemovies? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit of a grey area, to be honest. One one hand, "Voyage" is 72 minutes long, which is slightly edging on the side of telemovie (although it's an episode by numerous statements). But, if we're prescribing Enemy Within as a movie at 85 minutes, I'd go for the Five Doctors being the same as it's just as long and just as contained. And seeing as the uncut version of T5D is 102 minutes... Will (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The aricle calls it a "feature-length episode" and it was also later cut into a serial, and is part of season 20. So I tend not to think of it as a "telemovie", unlike the 1996 movie, but more as a special.  — Edokter • Talk •  14:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: according to the bbc website a monster character known as River Song will appear in 2 episodes directed by Steven Moffat.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the discussion above is about.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new character to appear in the new series 

message: In the episode Rose in series one theres a hand drawing shown of the Ninth Doctor at Pompeii also when the Doctor meets Captain Jack for the first time he mentions he was at Pompeii and known in sereis four theres an episode with the tenth doctor at Pompeii, so could there be a reunion in the not to distant future? User:Kami-Sama
:A. If there was it'd probably already have been leaked and B. Wikipedia isn't a forum go try Outpost Gallifrey.--130.126.37.47 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pompeii reunion 

message: Confirmed in DWM for this month as the title of episode two - plus some other casting news. Would someone add this in with the right citation: I don't have the mag so I can't source the article. Cheers! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Porcupine I don't have the magazine either. On the official Doctor who website it says Doctor actor Kevin Stoney has died!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a bit late - "The Fires of Pompeii" and some of the other details have already been added Stephenb (Talk) 14:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and see Kevin Stoney for you, Lerd :) Stephenb (Talk) 14:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Fires of Pompeii'' 

message: I see my edits to remove those ugly headings for the specials table have been removed, with the reason rowspans are needed; they contain info not suitable for "episode" column and section links which are being linked to (which were destroyed).  I disagree with the first part (the additions to the episode column were minimal and perfectly suitable), and I apologise for the second.  However, since I still consider them ugly and would prefer them removed, I'm curious: what references them, why (when surely any reference should be to their own article), and is there not a better way to link them if the "why" is a good reason? Stephenb (Talk) 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All the 'Series' links the the article's infobox for those episodes link directly to those sections (but that could be changed). But I do feel cramming that much information in the Episodes column in unsightly. I kinda like the way it is organized now.  — Edokter • Talk •  17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Edokter - having the Totally doctor who note in the episodes box was a bit crowded.  I suppose we could change it to the format of the "other stories" section - but then it wouldn't be consitant with the others in the main section.  StuartDD contributions 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually debated with myself whether to keep the Totally reference at all - it isn't actually needed in the table, since the serial's own article refers to when it was originally shown (i.e. within which other programme it was shown is irrelevant to the serial in the list).  The Children in Need references aren't strictly needed either.   The "Christmas" additions seemed fine - they were the primary reason I removed the rowspan, since the only reason for them appeared to be to say "Christmas special", and that made the "Specials" table look ugly and inconsistent with the other tables. Stephenb (Talk) 08:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rowspans 

message: Since we've now got a fair amount to say about episodes, I think we ought to create the articles for them quite soon - like, within three weeks. For past seasons, they were created as soon as the titles became known, but I think the idea to lock down on them this year was a good one - except we've got plenty to put in them at this stage. Now, as I see it we've got three options:
*Make articles only for the titles we know (episodes 1,2,3,4,7,10).
*Make articles for every episode - if we don't know the articles, just use Doctor Who (2007): Episode 5 and so on.
*Make articles for every story - so the Sontaran two-parter would share under the title of the known part; largely the same as the second option.
Any views? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we really have enough information to start the articles myself.  If we were to do it, I would go for option 1.  Bear in mind that starting the episode articles would attract a huge rush of fancraft and such like. StuartDD contributions 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then we'd have to revert it. We've got cast-list, confirmed trailer scenes and quotes from the production team - I think it's enough. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have any coherent information for any of the episodes to warrant an article yet, just bits and fragments which are already listed here. Just have patience...Even the Torchwood episodes, which are currently airing, don't all have articles yet.  — Edokter • Talk •  18:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've got cast-list, confirmed trailer scenes and quotes from the production team - I think it's enough. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Nor do we wish to attract undue attention with sub-par articles, given the current climate toward episode articles. Waiting seems the best approach. --Ckatzchatspy 02:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create episode articles? 

message: The first paragraph states there have been 192 aired serials. Going by the numbering on the page, that would be true, except that the numbering includes the unaired (and unfinished) Shada, so there have only been 191 aired serials. Could this either be mentioned near the start, or change the numbering so that it doesn't include Shada?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.230.194 (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shada is included in the serials count, as most official sources count it as a serial (BBC website,Brief History).  It is explained in an endnote that Shada was unaired, and the intro notes the contraversy about whether to include this. StuartDD contributions 08:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of aired serials 

message: Changed uncompleted to incompleted. Although I believe uncompleted is an alternative to incompleted, incompleted is the normal native speaker use in English (regardless how much my US spell checker throws a wobbler at it). Candy (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not.  The opposite of the adjective "complete" is "incomplete", but the opposite of "completed" is "uncompleted". Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncompleted 

message: Just so people know, I thing this title is coming from Outpost Gallifrey(regestration required) - but I doubt that it would count as a reliable source. StuartDD contributions 21:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right - Outpost Gallifrey doesn't count as a reliable source, hence we're not putting this title anywhere near the article. :) - NP Chilla (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't any longer, since it's been broken up :) The source StuartDD quotes is the forum www.doctorwhoforum.com, which was originally the OG forum, and as a forum doesn't count as a reliable source (www.doctorwhonews.com still does, though). Even though I totally believe the episode name to be true :) Stephenb (Talk) 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silence in the Library