Talk:Series 14 (Doctor Who)

Two reminders for the article and its talk page:
 * Any unsourced information on the main article page will be removed.
 * Absolutely no spoilers are allowed on this talk page.

--

Spoilers
Per the above rules, spoilery content was removed from this page. Shambala108 ☎  14:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase; the points in the Rumours section (which I cannot describe here) do not belong there any more than Carole Ann Ford saying that she would "jump at the chance" to play Susan again would have belonged in the Rumours section of series 12. The "rumours" do not state that the people in question will be returning but that they would be willing to. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  13:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Anniversary
I notice a lot of reference is made to "the 60th anniversary special" even though there are rumours of , coinciding with the 60th. Should we remain referring to "the 60th anniversary special" () until anything is confirmed otherwise? FractalDoctor ☎  10:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have the same question. I've seen pictures of clapper boards, but nothing as of yet which can be used as a valid source. 66 Seconds ☎  09:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

All further "anniversary"-discussion should take place at Talk page:2023 specials due to recent decision to have them seperated from Series 14. Thank you. ——Danniesen ☎  17:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Start date?
Do we have a source for this  start date? WaltK ☎  19:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

All further "anniversary"-discussion should take place at Talk page:2023 specials due to recent decision to have them seperated from Series 14. Thank you. ——Danniesen ☎  17:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Writers
Where exactly in the source given does it say that [Writer name, no spoilers] wrote all three episodes? What's the verbatim quote? The only quote even mentioning the 60th anniversary is "I’ve already written some of the episodes. The first will go out in November 2023 – that’s the 60th anniversary of the show." 120.20.172.45talk to me 08:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder for anyone replying to this question: no spoilers are allowed on this talk page. Shambala108 ☎  17:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, but somebody is going to have to answer this, lest you keep unsourced content in the article. 120.20.158.146talk to me 00:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It will be answered without spoilers or not at all. Shambala108 ☎  02:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine. So if it's not answered, then the content remains unsourced and can be removed. 122.199.43.25talk to me 12:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * What kind of sense does it make to block spoilers on a talk page for an article that allows spoilers? If we can't talk about a page on its talk page, we'd might as well not have one at all! Where does T:SPOIL require anything like this? – n8 (☎) 16:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure, but disallowing spoilers on the talk page for a spoilery page is 1000% counterproductive, and regardless of whatever policy may or may not exist — and if it isn't a policy then it shouldn't be exclusively binding, as per T:LOCAL RULES — an exception must be made for this talk page under the very obvious circumstances. Otherwise, the only discussion that can be had is through edit summaries, which can lead to edit wars which creates a million more issues than saying that Scottish-Rwandan actor's name on this talk page. 📯 📂 16:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Tardis:Where spoilers are allowed clearly states the policy, for whoever asked. Shambala108 ☎  21:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Well yes, but the policies also state spoilers are allowed on series pages, which talk pages are the extension of, and the alternate leads to larger violations of policies. We've got conflicting policies, so we should choose the lesser of two evils, for sake of all our sanities! But this is all moot anyway 'cos of Howling:The Howling, even though it isn't perfect. 📯 📂 21:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

For my response on the original topic, which absolutely can’t be given an answer without using spoilers… go to Howling:Series 14 (Doctor Who). -Danniesen ☎  22:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@User:Danniesen I left your original post about the Howling (see below) so there was no need to add it again. And I restored this page sans spoilers to preserve the edit history, since this talk page will exist long past the end of the season's release. Shambala108 ☎  22:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Ahh… nice. Where was this rule ever discussed? What purpose does it possibly serve for our readers or editors? Whom do we endanger by discussing spoilers on this talk page who is not already endangered by the spoilers on Series 14 (Doctor Who)? Because as it stands, it's completely indefensible, counterproductive, and borderline Kafkaesque. Would it really be impossible to reach a Community consensus-style policy clarification here? – n8 (☎) 22:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, changing policy to better suit an ongoing discussion feels wrong on many levels, from the abuse of power such activity could lead to — not saying that this specific instance was that though, to be clear, I'm not accusing anybody of that — and also seems like a violation of T:BOUND, even if it was inadvertent, because I'm sure consciously changing a policy in such a manner was not the intent of the parties involved, as I'd prefer to assume good faith. 📯 📂 22:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Found the source: Talk:Series 8 (Doctor Who). As expected, no acknowledgment of the impossible demands it imposes on our editors; no reference to the users we're supposed to be serving; and no explanation of any kind other than "this is what the policy is and it's not open to debate". We're the only wiki this big with a rule like this, because every other wiki this big understands that such a thing would be completely unworkable, and because every other wiki writes its policies collaboratively and democratically rather than by admin decree. Things should be different, because Fandom itself has imposed standards which say that our way of doing things is intolerable; but we're still paralysed because for almost two years now our admins have refused to provide us with any recourse for having these conversations in a binding way. At a certain point that refusal becomes a Fandom standards violation in and of itself.


 * Ahh well. Shambala, you've done an admirable job enforcing this policy, however poorly thought out that policy itself may be; and I appreciate your updating of the rules page to clarify the long-enforced nuances. Apologies for my frustration, but, well, it's frustrating. Not your fault. – n8 (☎) 00:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but there seems to be some implication above that I added the talk page portion of Tardis:Where spoilers are allowed to justify making this page free from spoilers. To be clear, I added that info almost three years ago, merely adding to a policy page something that User:CzechOut pointed out in an edit summary even longer ago. It's not a new policy; it's been there for a while (although the splitting of the spoiler policy page into several would make it easy to miss). And everyone, let's keep the complaining about policies you don't like off this page. Some of the comments here about admin's behaviors are coming close to violating Tardis:No personal attacks. Shambala108 ☎  02:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

All further "anniversary"-discussion should take place at Talk page:2023 specials due to recent decision to have them seperated from Series 14. Thank you. ——Danniesen ☎  17:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Spoilers
Any spoilers regarding the series, including the already existing ones, are to be discussed at Howling:Series 14 (Doctor Who). —-Danniesen ☎  19:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

All further "anniversary"-discussion should take place at Talk page:2023 specials due to recent decision to have them seperated from Series 14. The Howling page will not be altered. Thank you. ——Danniesen ☎  17:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit war
Locking article for a day to put a halt to the edit wars. Resolve this issue here without edit warring (and without spoilers, whatever they might be). Shambala108 ☎  21:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Aw21212121 ☎  21:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Shame it didn’t get locked before it got reverted to prevent inaccuracy. Danniesen ☎  22:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Danniesen's interpretation of the recent DWM is correct as far as the writing credit - it's too vague to be used for that. (I mean. I'm sure ultimately we're going to change it to be as it is currently. But what's currently there is not a source.) Najawin ☎  23:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, there’s no doubt that eventually, it will prove true and the page will have to say this, but the wiki should only reflect the latest "truth"… that meaning that even if A would prove untrue upon a certain date and it turned out that B was correct in the end, at the given time until B was proven, the wiki would go with A, as it would be the latest information until disproven. Danniesen ☎  23:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @ User:Danniesen, as one of the editors who engaged in edit warring, you can't really complain about the state of the article when it was locked. Proper procedure is to contact an admin, not continually revert edits until an admin finally steps in.


 * This page will be unlocked tomorrow; please resolve this issue here without complaining about how or when it was locked. That is not what this talk page is for. Shambala108 ☎  03:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)