Forum:Story Numbering

I have been making myself a spreadsheet list of the stories; and am noticing a difference from what the wiki here might say to what i can find on the various DVD's.

For example the DVD for the 5 doctors has printed on it story number 130 but the wiki here notes it as 129. So I must ask; is their something I am missing? or has Shada been somehow excluded in the DVD list of stories? Kirokusclone talk to me 07:23, July 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * You can check our List of Doctor Who television stories, which has numbering beside each serial.
 * From which region is the DVD? And where is the story number listed? --Tangerineduel / talk 13:47, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Its Region 1 and that's actually the link you sent me. The error arises between Destiny of the Daleks and Black Orchid Kirokusclone talk to me 22:31, July 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * In region 1 The Horns of Nimon is listed as 108, and the following story, The Leisure Hive, is 110. This is apparently to leave room for numbering Shada as 109 when/if it comes out on DVD. Shambala108 talk to me 23:36, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Yea I went and did some looking into the stories; and that is the only answer I could come up with. I suppose that Shada might get some kind of special treatment somewhere down the line.68.43.83.92talk to me 05:15, July 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, I never noticed that before. Our numbering scheme is wrong. Shada definitely is 109.  Numbering is a production thing, and from a production standpoint, Shada exists.  It has a production code which remains honored to this day, so therefore it is a "real" story in the order.  That's why our "made next/made prev" navigation honors Shada.


 * Our numbering scheme should definitely honor Shada as 109. It's completely wrong that Shada isn't even on our list of Doctor Who television stories.   21:24: Sun 15 Jul 2012

"Honor"? Boblipton talk to me 21:59, July 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * The numbering isn't really production-based, though. Production codes are, and Shada was given the production code 5M. But the numbers found on the Region 1 DVDs just come from BBC Video/2|Entertain/BBC Worldwide/whatever they're called this week.


 * Now, that's "official" enough for my purposes, but we should note that those Region 1 boxes also count Trial of a Time Lord as 4 stories, which we don't. And I think (though I'm not certain, and may have miscounted) that the Doctor Who Magazine numbering by which Planet of the Dead was the "Mighty 200" follows what we currently have (i.e. no Shada, and ToaTL as one story). —Josiah Rowe talk to me 02:48, July 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually saying it's a "production thing" in the sense of being used by the production team. I'm saying it's something from a "production point of view".  And in this sense, Shada was produced, if not finished.  The fact that it retains its production code means, to me, that it should also retain a number in the order.  And Region 1 DVDs suggest it's 109.


 * As you point out, though, there is a discrepancy between the Mighty 200 poll and the Region 1 DVD numbering. On this list we at the very least need to acknowledge our sources in the lead of the article, list of Doctor Who television stories.  16:29: Mon 16 Jul 2012


 * But isn't it right that, at least the List of Doctor Who television stories doesn't include Shada as it was never broadcast?
 * While it was produced it wasn't televised.
 * So if it's included shouldn't it be under the "Other" title along with The Pilot Episode? --Tangerineduel / talk 07:20, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not really akin to the Pilot Episode, though. The "pilot" was a dress rehearsal of "An Unearthly Child", not a separate story.   Its production code was wrenched from it and applied to the later take.  And the "pilot" doesn't force a numerical gap in the home video release numbering.  Shada is a totally different situation.  When it does get released to DVD, and we all know it will, it'll be numbered 109.  We should just face up to that and start renumbering the stories, since it must tediously be done manually.  We can then say at List of Doctor Who television stories, "Hey, we know the "Mighty 200" poll doesn't count Shada or 7A-7D as separate stories, but we do, because 2|Entertain/BBC Video does."  At the end of the day, BBC Worldwide is a higher source of information than DWM.   01:39: Wed 25 Jul 2012


 * You do bring up an interesting thing though. "We all know, it'll be numbered 109". Only those in Region 1 will know that. The Region 2 and Region 4 DVD releases don't have story numbers on them. Hence my question at the start.
 * So given there has often been some difference between the Region 1 and 2 (Region 4 is usually the same as 2), should we be using just the Region 1 releases as our only justification to renumber? --Tangerineduel / talk 07:08, July 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Location is immaterial to this discussion, isn't it? Surely it doesn't matter where in the world the BBC have made an official pronouncement as to a story's number.  The fact of relevance is merely that they have made it.  If the situation were reversed, I wouldn't be saying, "Oh, it's only story 109 in London and Melbourne."  Now, if there were different numbers in London and New York, that'd be an issue.  But there aren't, so we don't.  15:37: Wed 25 Jul 2012


 * These aren't locations exactly they're commercial markets.
 * It's not that there are different numbers. It's that there are no numbers. The story numbers are only present on the Region 1 US marketed DVDs.
 * So I'm looking for information to corroborate what's on the Region 1 DVDs.
 * Also it'd be nice to know why this info is on the Region 1 DVDs and not on the 2/4 DVDs.
 * Additionally, is what is written on the cover of a DVD "official" of the BBC?
 * I ask because on the Australian Region 4 releases there is information for the Doctor Who Club of Australia on the back cover. I can't find anything stating they're a licenced by the BBC, but their information is on a BBC licenced product.
 * If we're saying that all story numbers and any other information on the DVD covers is official then therefore this is also, despite no corroborating evidence. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:03, July 25, 2012 (UTC)