Talk:Doctor Who season 23

message: We should talk about what exactly are the proper titles for each of the segments of Trial of a Time Lord and/or which ones should be given priority. The pages also need a rewrite, as they are very confusing. -khaosworks 20:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Parts 1 to 4 are called The Mysterious Planet, 5 to 8 are called Mindwarp, 9 to 12 are Terror of the Vervoids and 13 and 14 are officially called The Ultimate Foe or Time Inc.  Also, in Notes, number 2 is off-colour as the BBC actually agrees with that! Jashank 03:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a lot of editing between that note and now. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  older entries 

message: is it worth noting that mel came from the future to the trail but leaves with the doctor. she would be living the same things over and over again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy turner (talk • contribs) 14:18, January 8, 2006  (UTC)
:Probably worth a note, yes.  We can also mention that the spin-offs have generally assumed that after the events of the trial the Doctor took Mel back to her regular timeline (his own future), and then waited until he would meet her for the "first" time.  I'm heading out now, but will see if I can add something later tonight. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The note probably better belongs in The Ultimate Foe. Terror of the Vervoids already notes that Mel comes from the future. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  But it's pretty long-winded.  If anyone wants to tighten it up, please feel free to do so — I was having trouble with the wording of the various "first meetings".  What is it that Douglas Adams said about the trouble with time travel being the verb tenses? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mel 

message: The article states that
"A frequently used in-joke throughout this serial is that, during the showing of the evidence, the Doctor interjects with protests about the overly violent nature of the scenes. "
I watched the serial recently, and I can only remember one instance of this - and that was by the Inqusitor.
StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 19:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Joke 

message: I have replaced the use of "segment" with "part" as I feel that it answers the reviewers problem and perhaps simplifies the meaning.
Please feel free to revert if this does not work.
The dates have been de-linked as well.
Glubbdrubb (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Righting" the wrongs 

message: I've given the prose something of a facelift on behalf of the guild of Copyeditors. Not having seen the serial, I couldn't do much but rephrase, but hopefully it flows a little better now. Please review the changes to ensure any factual errors which may have crept in are fixed. Regards, Skomorokh 03:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: The term "Gallifreyan law" is flagged as jargon.  Is the term "Gallifreyan," meaning "of or by the principal language, people or government of the planet Gallifrey" really that difficult to understand?  I mean, there is a link to the Wiki article on the planet and everything.  Must it be spelled out as, for instance, "the law of the planet Gallifrey," when the vast majority of the people reading this article will either know that the Doctor is from there or will just click the link?  I think this is an excellent example of why people joke that Wikipedians will flag things like "there are five fingers on the human hand" with the  tag. Boomshadow 23:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the tag. Speaking as someone who is unfamiliar with the topic, I had no idea what "Gallifreyan law" was, beyond that it was law that had something to do with something named "Gallifrey". It is not obvious that Gallifrey is a planet or even a jurisdiction; compare the phrase Draconian law for example. I copyedited this article in response to a request to the Guild of Copyeditors from an editor looking to take this through FAC. The lead section of an article is an introduction to the topic, and must summarize the most important points without relying on either the body of the article or on linked articles. For more on this, see Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#State_the_obvious and Wikipedia:Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview. Ciao, Skomorokh 04:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the other way to say it would be "Laws of Gallifrey".  You'd still need to find out what Gallifrey was (i.e. a fictional planet), but it won't be confused with something like "Draconian". DonQuixote (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried to fix it. --Syzygy (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon? 

message: Sorry, I don't know what to title this as, but I was wondering if these episodes (without the trial interrupting them) were ever made by themselves, then added the trial around them. In the same way Star Trek showed The Cage (first pilot episode) through a court case with Captain Pike since the original episode wasn't released until the '80s.
Nemmex (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: From the outset it was intended by JNT (producer) and Eric Saward (script editor) that there would be a linking theme of a trial (with the linking scenes written by Saward), the evidence at the trial to consist of three sub-plots, which would be written by others (such as Robert Holmes) and then linked into the main story by Saward. No pre-existing material was used: it was all commissioned fresh. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Episodes? 

message: It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.
To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.
To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.
Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour contrast problems 

message: While I was making some changes across the different series infoboxes today, The Trial of a Time Lord and The Key to Time stood out as the season number is not displayed anywhere in the infobox and it does seem like something that should be there. I'm not sure the best way to achieve that, I did make an attempt which did feel a little misguided and I wasn't surprised when it was reverted. I'm not sure of others thoughts if it needs to be there and how to do it if so. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't appear to be necessary while the article has existed for as long as it has, before the implementation of the granularity edits. The article explicitly starts with The Trial of a Time Lord is a 14-part science fiction serial, and the lead also contains The serial, produced as the show's twenty-third season. Same with the latter article. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry if it came across as if I was criticising your actions, it was a good revert as I wasn't quite sure of what I had done though in the first place - I just gave it a go. Although, I felt I had to at least pose the question as the season number seemed to me to be so obviously missing - and I thought the purpose of infoboxes was to summarise the most pertinent information. While I do agree that the info is in the article, so is most of the information in the infobox so I'm not sure that alone justifies it's absence. Most of the series articles of Doctor Who do contain the season/series number. And the next/prev links to these articles from other infoboxes list the season number for the linked season (eg on Doctor Who (season 22)). Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes Headings 

message: Currently the article says this:
*This was the last serial to star Colin Baker after he was dismissed from the role when it ended. (my emphasis)
*Colin Baker makes his final appearance as the Doctor in this longest running serial before being fired by the BBC. (my emphasis) 
*^a Although the following serial Time and the Rani was the Sixth Doctor's final appearance, Baker declined an offer to return either for the entire story (as originally offered) or solely for a regeneration scene... (my emphasis)
So two problems:
#that last nugget, found under the Notes heading, seems to contradict the first two assertions. 
#Asserting someone has been fired/dismissed, without referring to a source, seems like a BLP failure to me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: He was fired between seasons and then asked to come back for one more story, a concession JNT managed to wrangle from Grade, but Colin declined so he could focus on his career post Who. ()   Etron81 (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Colin Baker - pushed or jumped inconsistencies & BLP fail

message: Hi
I'd like to suggest that this article is renamed to "Doctor Who (Season 23)" in order to be consistent with the other seasons of the classic era of Doctor Who. 
Having the article titled by its "story arc name" makes it difficult when browsing seasons of the show as it is unnecessarily different.
In the past I thought it was okay since this is what it's commonly known as, but even the BBC have called it 'Season 23' for their upcoming Blu-Ray release and I think it'd be much easier if this article was also called that.
Any thoughts?
HTS126 (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Per WP:NCTV, the article should be titled by its distinctive name if it has one. Same as The Key to Time. -- /Alex/21 11:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

text: In any case, the link Doctor Who (season 23) works perfectly well. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename for consistency?  

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Key to Time which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 11:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doctor Who series 14 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress