Enemy Within?

All right, time for our first content debate! The question: should we use the title "Enemy Within" or not? My leaning is "no", since the TV movie was never referred to by that name during its production. Segal just came up with it when a fan at Gallifrey asked for a name besides "Doctor Who". (See here for a source.) I'd suggest that instead of using Enemy Within as a title, we could use Doctor Who (TV Movie) or just TV Movie, since there's been only one and that's how it's usually referred to in fandom. Plus, if you're going by the usage on the BBC site for episode names such as "An Unearthly Child", they call it Doctor Who: The TV Movie. Other opinions? --Josiah Rowe 07:02, 22 Feb 2005 (GMT)

It may be a good idea to list the movie as "Doctor Who: The TV Movie." I now recall that "The Enemy Within" was also a working title for "The Invisible Enemy," and that story was in fact listed as such on the sound effects LP released in the late 70s. Plus so many people refer to the Paul McGann story as just, "the TV movie," that they may not even recognize "The Enemy Within" as a story title. --Freethinker1of1 13:05, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

OMG I cant believe there was that many episodes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- 19:53, 4 July 2009

leave out the pilot episode?

I vote for its removal both on account of its non-canonicity and for the fact that it serves as part of another story, in a way. yes, I know the BBC official guide includes it.

The same objections could be raised about "Shada". I say we keep the pilot in, since this is a list of stories produced for television rather than a list of events in the Doctor's life. --Josiah Rowe 22:46, 22 Feb 2005 (GMT)

television stories, more accurate than television serials

stories might make more sense. "Mission to the Unknown", "The Five Doctors" and the McGann movie all aired as self-contained stories, not serials. (well, maybe not "Mission to the Unknown" exactly...) and the Eccleston series will have mostly singleton episodes which you could not accurately call serials.

I support the idea of moving this page to List of television stories. (But I won't do it until there's been more discussion, say, from the page creator.)
By the way, if you type " --~~~~ ", the Wiki software will automatically create a signature for your comments. Like this: --Josiah Rowe 22:39, 22 Feb 2005 (GMT)
I created the page, and agree with the reasons given for using "stories" instead of "serials," so "stories" it is. I mainly just wanted to avoid using "episodes," as the BBC listing does, since individual parts of some of the stories, especially the Second Doctor ones, were titled "Episode One, Episode Two, etc.," and I thought that could get confusing. Thanks for the input, guys. Great to see this wiki taking off. --Freethinker1of1 13:14, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

K9 and Company

Okay - who's for including K9 and Company in this list??!

--David Brider 14:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. It might be argued that the show shouldn't be included because the Doctor isn't in it, but then, he wasn't in "Mission to the Unknown" either, and had a very limited role in "The Tenth Planet." Plus, the show does include two companions and is considered canon by most authorities. --Freethinker1of1 19:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Series 1 vs Season 27

No where in any production notes is it stated that the new series produced by BBC Wales is 'Season 27', if we're going for accuracy, it should be Series 1 (etc), rather than Season 27.

Also if this whole continuing season thing was true to the production order then the 1996 TVM would need a season number as well.

Even RTD has stated that the new series is noted on all the production material as Series 1 (onwards), not season 27 (or whatever).

It should be changed, (perhaps put 'Season 27' in brackets or something, but it's not the name of that group of stories. --Tangerineduel 12:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Shrink this down?

Should we just use links to the seasons, instead of all these links to episodes making this page really long? ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 10:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Series 5 vs Series 1

In DWM it stated that the production team will refer to Series 5 as Series 1 to reflect the change in production team and cast, shouldn't that mean we should now change Series 5 to Series 1?

Yes, but DWA stated that they will refer to Series 5 as Series 5 due to the BBC marketing that way and DWA is produced by the BBC and not Panini.Alpha111 20:26, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Needs Work

The wikipedia version of this article is very much superior. It has the dates, names of each individual episode, which episodes are missing, writer, and director. Please revise this page! 09:32, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Story numbers off by one from Doctor's Daughter forward

The Doctor's Daughter is numbered as story 193. The Sontaran Stratagem and The Poison Sky are numbered as 193a and 193b. The Doctor's Daughter should be story number 194 and every story number afterwards should be incremented by one.

Video Games?

If this is a list of TELEVISION episodes then why do we have the four video games included under the eleventh doctor. Should they not be deleted? XtremeGoose 01:04, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there should be a seperate page for the videogames. They are clearly not television stories.Icecreamdif 21:29, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the games should be broken out into a separate article. However whilst the list is there it should include Mazes of Time for the mobiles (iOS currently, Android coming) refs http://gallifreynewsbase.blogspot.com/2010/12/dwn161210115508-mazes-of-time-apple.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worldwidestories/pressreleases/2010/12_december/doctor_who_app.shtml http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/doctor-who-the-mazes-of-time/id404556035?mt=8 Andypiper 22:04, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Add Series 6

Now that Series 6 (or whatever name is finally decided - the 2011 season; Matt Smith's second season as the doctor) has officially started (with the 23 April 2011 broadcast of The Impossible Astronaut in the UK/US), can we finally get it linked in to this page? Please at least link the overall season and the stories that have already aired. Thanks! 16:54, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

They most certainly are episodes.

There is no excuse for the Tenth and Eleventh Doctor charity specials to be removed. The first two clearly bridge the respective year's season finale to the Christmas special, and Space and Time hints at Amy's pregnancy in series 6.

Also, the Christmas specials are part of the full series now. Who on Earth considers them as this?

(I'd edit them myself, but I have absolutely no idea how tables work)

-- Tybort (talk page) 23:29, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

No response after a week, re-adding them as best as I can, as well as Dreamland and The Infinite Quest. Also, removed the numbering that started from Rose. Rose isn't the first episode, so why would we label that as "1"? It's clearly called the 157th serial on its page and it's not a reboot. -- Tybort (talk page) 20:29, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not replying; I just read this right now. The reason I took the charity specials out is because they're less than 10 minutes long, so they don't really count as actual episodes. I actually meant to put them back in the bottom into the "Other" category with the other Children in Need special, but I forgot about it, so thanks for reminding me.

Now, onto the episode numbering. You're completely right about the specials not being a part of any given series, but I didn't want the list to have all of these small tables in between every large one like on Wikipedia's list. Since the specials are part of the canon, I have them numbered off as episodes that are part of the show, but they are not included in the series numbering. That way, newer fans will know that they aren't just extra episodes and that they're part of the actual canon.

The reason I started a new numbering is because it is a new show. The show hadn't aired since 1986, the serial format was completely changed, the entire staff was replaced, and it was catered to a new audience. Even the official BBC site splits it up into Classic Who and New Who which is why they started off with "Series 1" instead of "Season 27". While I'm not denying that both shows, along with the TV Movie, exist in the same continuity, they are still different shows. There is no point in continuing the serial numbering in the new series when it was abandoned for the episode system. Also, I plan on adding episode tables for the Classic show as well. GamingBuddha 07:18, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Episode Key

I'm just curious at to how this appears to others?

In Firefox 12.0, the pink color shows on the key, but for partially missing, I only see the blue-with-faded-corner (visually matches backgrounds on "Serial", "001", etc.). In IE 9.0.6, I don't see either color on the key (both blue-faded-on-edge and match the "Serial", "001", etc.).

In the story-list itself, the pink and yellow backgrounds appear.

Anyway, I'm not sure if it's just me or a more wide-spread browser issue, but I thought I'd mention it. Tzigone talk to me 16:35, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Asylum of the Daleks

Is it too early to add this title to the list?? to me 11:53, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Episode versus Serial and Season versus Series

Based on reading, it seems clear that the 'Season' numbering ran from 60s-80s from 1-26, and then ended and the 2000s reboot is being called a 'series' grouping, 1-7 s far. So they are not interchangeable and the division is easy to understand.

What I am not clear on though, is the use of 'episode' and 'serial'. Are these used interchangeably? Based on this table, you would think that "An Unearthly Child" (the first part of the story sharing the same name) would be called a serial, but not an episode.

Are we using a similar term distinction here? It seems like it might confusion common usage. There are some two-episode stories in the 2000s seasons so the term serial could be appropriate for them as well.

The 'story' terminology appears to be numbered continuously. With the 1996 story 156 bridging the gap between the Seasons/Series. Wouldn't it be good if we could agree upon a common 'episode/serial' term to be used for the specific air dates which could also be numbered continuously through the whole series overall?

If I had to choose 1 I'd probably say serial, since it's shorter, though 'episode X' links should probably point to the same places.

Also, is it plausible that some day in addition to story pages we might also have serial/episode pages? It seems that for the most part that the newer stories all get 1 per (usually being an hour long) but the older stories, albeit having 30 minute episodes, often have way more than 2 serials per story, so a lot more content is jammed in. +Yc 03:40, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from the serial article it depends in general on what era of Doctor Who you're talking about. Due to the differences between the two series (1963-1989 and 2005-) it's not as simple as you suggest.
To use an example from the 60s where the serial's title and first episode aren't the same; The Daleks is the name of the second story/serial. The first episode of that story is called "The Dead Planet".
All the post-2005 stories are told and presented as single stories with individual titles and are marketed as such. The 1963-1966 stories did have individual titles but are classified by the BBC under the story titles we use on this wiki. All stories post-1966 (or The Savages onwards) have one title with individual episodes (which incidentally were called "episodes" until 1974's The Time Warrior where from that point on they were called "Parts").
The only post-2005 story that was a single story with multiple parts was 2009/2010's The End of Time. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:11, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

2.1 Page created

Background colors of missing episodes

We need to change the background colors used when episodes are missing. The current one are unreadable with the new colors. -- to me 17:55, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to to adding Shada back into this list? When I first found this page it was episode 109 and it had now been released onto DVD as episode 109.

I will try to be positive, but i am positive you missed the 2 peter cushing movies,and shada and scream of the shalka animations. signed sylvia60.241.157.179talk to me 02:48, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

5.3 Factual correction

The Ressurection of the Daleks is a 4 episode serial, not 2 episode. The only confusing thing about it is that 2 episodes aired on Feb 8 1984, and the other 2 aired a week later, at Feb 15 1984.

Mawkee 00:12, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

According to the story notes for Resurrection of the Daleks: "Although recorded as four separate episodes, it was broadcast as two forty-five-minute episodes to free up transmission slots for the broadcast of the 1984 Winter Olympics." If you can find a source that shows it was broadcast as four episodes rather than two, you can change it. Shambala108 00:25, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

5.4 Let's Kill Hitler

There is a contradiction from the episode "Let's Kill Hitler". In the infobox episode, this story is treated as the "218b". Now on this page, it is treated as "219". Which one is right?

Anyway, from there, all numbering is wrong. Sorry for my bad english. Luisdpaula 00:28, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

This issue is currently under discussion at Thread:164173, if you're interested. Shambala108 00:33, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

Shada - should it be added for Season 17?

My DVD collection has The Leisure Hive (TV story) (first serial in Series 18) as Serial 110 (back of the box), not 109 (what is shown here), and all serials after that are one off (the DVD box shows one number higher than what is shown here). Does BBC have Shada (TV story) as an official numbered serial? Should it be added here, even though it was not finished or broadcast during Season 17?. to me 19:09, November 8, 2014 (UTC)

Bought the BBC Shada DVD set. They show it as Serial / Story 109. to me 12:19, November 13, 2014 (UTC)

Last Christmas

Quick question: is Last Christmas considered to be the end of Series 8 or the beginning of Series 9? I've seen it both ways on this wiki, and I want to know which way the issue stands before editing the page here. --Bold Clone 04:13, December 27, 2014 (UTC)


I am aware that the article says "television stories" but if we're going to list some minisodes and prequels we may as well list them all, especially as many of them were made available on Red Button and other services that people often view through their TV sets now. Plus many people still view DVDs and Blu-rays on televisions. I think the article title should probably be renamed to take this into account. For this list to be complete it should include all officially filmed Doctor Who stories. 23skidoo 18:41, February 15, 2015 (UTC)

Hell Bent onwards

Ok, if on Hell Bent's page the story number is 262, why here it is 261b , why my edits on this page were reverted? I thought we should follow the Wikipedia numbering... Even though we're not following Wikipedia's numbering, at least let's not contradict ourselves, one page says Hell Bent is 261b, another says it's 262. Let's reach common ground. Bob Dallas 21:01, August 7, 2017 (UTC)

Top Image

What should the top image be? Is there a way to put all of the logos rotating like the pictures of all of the Doctors rotating on The Doctor page? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kirkj9 (talk • contribs) .

Monster Files/Case Files

Should we consider the Monster Files (both Jack's and River's) and the Case Files as mini-episodes or are they not to be considered as such?? --DCLM 15:39, April 20, 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistencies regarding specials

It seems there is no consistent rule for specials in this list. Christmas specials are considered as part of their respective series, but The Five Doctors isn't considered to be part of Season 20? The 2009 specials are considered part of Series 4, but the 2013 specials aren't considered part of series 7? What decides which series each Christmas special is part of?

What's going on here?

JustWilhelm 09:23, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

Story numbers

I disagree with the numbering system used on this page. Specifically, there are 2 points of divergence I would like to point out:

Shada - considering that this story has been completed with animation, and is cononical, I propose that it is counted as story #109.

Utopia & The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords - I fail to see how this story is considered to be a three-parter. Utopia is clearly a seperate story, considering that it has a different setting, cast, and has a different director, indicating that it is a separate production. I propose that Utopia is counted as story #188 (factoring in Shada), and that The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords is counted as story #189 (also factoring in Shada).

The third point of divergence I am less bothered by:

Heaven Sent & Hell Bent - Although I had previously considered this to be a two-parter, it is now clear that these are two separate stories, given that they have separate settings and casts, and do not share the same production bloc. However, given that they are both directed by Rachel Talalay, and both follow the same plotline, I can see why it might be considered a two-parter.

JustWilhelm 09:38, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

In response to your multiple reversions of admin edits and in response to this message. You have the right to disagree with the numbering system accepted by this wiki. You do not have the right to change our current policies unilaterally. As it happens, there is an ongoing (though not very active) discussion of this issue at Thread:183627. You are free to participate in it. However, you are not allowed to change anything until that discussion is closed by an admin, as stated at Tardis:You are bound by current policy. Amorkuz 17:53, June 15, 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, however - this is not relevant to the edits I have been making as I have not changed any numbers. Please see my previous section on the position of The Five Doctors that I have been repeatedly correcting. JustWilhelm 11:31, June 16, 2019 (UTC)

Since we've had two IP users (or the same one twice) attempting to change the numbering system, I'm going to clarify a few things.

  • Tardis:You are bound by current policy - while a discussion is under way, no one is to implement any changes until/unless a decision is reached.
  • Tardis:No personal attacks - the rule against no personal attacks also applies to edit summaries. Please note that abusing admins and other editors is a really bad way to get anyone to agree with you.
  • Wikis are part of FANDOM - emphasis on fan. We as fans decide what we want to do with our wiki, usually by discussion. Sometimes we take showrunner/actor/writer comments into account, but we are not required to do so.

Thanks Shambala108 02:01, November 4, 2019 (UTC)

I'm a fan, and I believe that Series 12 is actually Season 30 of the Simpsons. I'll change it accordingly. Thanks. Jeremy2122 04:14, November 4, 2019 (UTC)
Obviously you don't understand how this wiki works. When there is a discussion in progress, no changes are allowed to be made until/unless the discussion has been concluded by an admin. Failure to follow this rule can lead to blocking. If you have points to make, by all means make them here, but do not go against our rules. Incidentally, thanks to users repeatedly violating T:BOUND on this article, it has been locked so only admins can edit it for now. Shambala108 04:18, November 4, 2019 (UTC)
What discussion was in process at the time? None. Solved. I'll update Season 30 soon! Jeremy2122 04:27, November 4, 2019 (UTC)
Another thing, threats to vandalize pages are not allowed on this wiki. Shambala108 04:29, November 4, 2019 (UTC)
Just wanna butt in to point out that: no, it's not false information being presented. It was written as a two-parter with the thought of it being a two-parter. That it was thought of as a three-parter prior to being written has no bearing on it nor does a change of thoughts after it has been written. Even if the Wiki does decide to go another way around it, it will still stay factual that they are a two-part story. --DCLM 05:48, November 4, 2019 (UTC)
Ya got a source to back that up? TGWD/TWWL was also written "with the thought of it being a two-parter". Look where that is. What it ORIGINALLY was thought of as is not what it is NOW thought of as. Shada, THOUGHT of as story 109, where's that now? I'm poking more holes into your story than a cheese grater has.
You can't cite any sources, neither of the episode articles state thus or have any sources that status thus, no consensus was formed at the first discussion, and there was agreement that HS/HB are separate episodes in the linked discussion at this discussion. Interesting! Try again? Funny how you've never been able to respond to this, thrice now. to me 11:22, November 5, 2019 (UTC)
Acting smart and hip trying to undermine others is not gonna help your case. Shada was unfinished so you can't use that as backup either. Notice how it was reverted back and your edits were continuously undone by both more experienced users and admins and afterwards locked. Could it be because you were doing something wrong? Most likely. Consensus needs to be reached on this, which it has yet to do, until then it stays a two-parter as was what it was written as. --DCLM 11:32, November 5, 2019 (UTC)
Funny how you skipped the other example. Don't want it to throw back into your face? Or the fact that you cannot produce any sources that back up your "edits". I'll keep waiting for them. to me 14:37, November 5, 2019 (UTC)
You know, the longer you do this the more it will become clear that you are a troublemaker. You've already been blocked on 4 accounts. And I'm no admin, I'm just informing you of what they are doing. It might turn out that they eventually block your IP adress based on your continuous get-arounds about the block. --DCLM 15:15, November 5, 2019 (UTC)
BTW, this is the last response you'll get from me. From now on, any response (if you get any) will be from others (admins included). --DCLM 15:26, November 5, 2019 (UTC)

Notes on First and Second Doctor missing stories

Should we create sections for the First and Second Doctor eras that explain that stories have been recreated by official animations (and in the case of Mission, having been recreated by UCLAN)? --DCLM 10:23, October 10, 2019 (UTC)


Are webcasts supposed to be included in this list? I would argue not, as they are not Television Stories as the title would suggest. Suddenly webcasts like Shada and Death Comes to Time have been added eventhough these are stories that are not recent at all so would have been added way earlier. Dreamland, for example, is added as there was a DVD release like any other story. Daniel.holleman 11:41, October 16, 2020 (UTC)Daniel.holleman

DVD releases do not a TV story make. This equivocation is obviously mistaken. But even if we ignore this, there are actual webcasts already present on this list, the tardisodes or the Prequels that were produced during the Smith era. At best you can argue "oh, but these were attached to the main television production, which is what we mean when we say 'Doctor Who television stories'", but it's not clear that we mean that instead of "televisual story principally concerning Doctor Who". Najawin 11:53, October 16, 2020 (UTC)
And lets not forget, webcast is literally only the medium it was broadcast on. The stories themselves are no different any others on this list. These animated stories (I don't refer to them as webcasts no more than you would Rose (broadcast)) more than deserve a place on this page. Epsilon (Contact me) 12:02, October 16, 2020 (UTC)

I am not invalidating these stories. I'm just saying that they do not fit onto this list. The definition of "televised" is "record for or transmit by television" which stories like Death Comes to Time and Shada (8th Doctor) do not accord to. These stories also have a different format, being non-live action. The main purpose of this article is to showcase all episodes that were broadcast on TV under the name Doctor Who. It is a handy guide for people to check what episode comes next in a watchthrough. By cluttering the page with other types of stories the purpose gets lost. Having Death Comes to Time on the list could be very confusing for new viewers as (as it says in the article on this wiki) these events are "alternate to Doctor Who". Following what is already on the list, I would vouch to remove Dreamland from the list aswell. As it isn't part of the "main show". Daniel.holleman 20:19, October 16, 2020 (UTC)Daniel.holleman

So you're also proposing we remove the tardisodes and the prequels that existed during the Smith era as well? And let me note, any reference to the "main show" is inherently in violation of T:NPOV, so can't be used here. Najawin 20:22, October 16, 2020 (UTC)
And may I add that The Infinite Quest and Dreamland ought to remain on this list, as they're included on the 2019 specials steelbook.
The thing is, this list isn't just for live-action stories - it's for televisual stories. Many people simply have no idea that the Eighth Doctor had three separate visual stories, and they ought to be informed of the fact. And if anything, the inclusion of these animated stories would theoretically aid viewers, as otherwise they would be getting an incomplete list of things to watch. Epsilon (Contact me) 20:32, October 16, 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, all what you two are arguing might be true. However, this lists purpose is the following: the list collects together all articles where in the title it says "(TV Story)". The stories that you have mentioned, do not follow that one, simple rule. Real Time, Death Comes to Time, Shada (8th Doctor), A Ghost Story for Christmas, The Doctor Who Experience and 'Twas the Night before Christmas are in this list but do not apply. I must agree though that Dreamland and The Infinite Quest do belong here. I would love to also hear the opinion of someone else, instead of only having two people who have been active in the adding of Webcasts to the Television Stories article. Daniel.holleman 20:55, October 16, 2020 (UTC)Daniel.holleman

Another thing worth mentioning is that both Dreamland and Shada were both originally broadcast on BBC Red Button. Epsilon (Contact me) 21:04, October 16, 2020 (UTC)
Point of information. Well. Two points of information. The list does not do what you claim it does. Clara and the TARDIS is HOMEVID, for example, and the tardisodes have literally no designation. What you're saying this list is just isn't stated anywhere on the page. Similarly, I have not been active in adding Webcasts to this article. Epsilon has. I've merely enforced T:BOUND when I saw an overzealous editor attempt to remove them without good cause. I do not differentiate undoing your edit from me undoing the recent edits by some random IP user to a bunch of classic episodes where they kept mucking with the Main Enemy and Featured fields. I don't have an agenda in doing this, I'm simply applying consistency. Najawin 21:05, October 16, 2020 (UTC)

Let me give some counterarguements to the arguments that were already given:

1: "At best you can argue "oh, but these were attached to the main television production, which is what we mean when we say 'Doctor Who television stories'", but it's not clear that we mean that instead of "televisual story principally concerning Doctor Who". " - The article is called "List of Doctor Who television stories", a "televisual story" is a different thing. I would believe that we cannot equate the two.

2: "And lets not forget, webcast is literally only the medium it was broadcast on." - This article is literally about the medium. There are categories comic stories, prose stories, audio stories.

3: "These animated stories (...) more than deserve a place on this page." - Them being on this list or not does not invalidate them by any means. I'm only argueing that these are not Television Stories, and therefore are out of place in this specific list.

4: "this list isn't just for live-action stories - it's for televisual stories." - see point number 1

5: "Another thing worth mentioning is that both Dreamland and Shada were both originally broadcast on BBC Red Button." - I already agreed that Dreamland should remain.

6: "What you're saying this list is just isn't stated anywhere on the page." - Neither does it state that webcasts should be added.

7: "when I saw an overzealous editor attempt to remove them without good cause." - Personal attacks are not needed, and against policy. I gave my reasoning in the editsummory. Fine if you disagree, but do not say that I did not give a good cause. Daniel.holleman 11:53, October 23, 2020 (UTC)Daniel.holleman

To be perfectly fair, this page was created way back in the dark, early days of the wiki, which were filled with inaccuracies.
The thing is, what is the purpose of this page? To inform readers of which Doctor Who episodes exist, and their release dates, etc.
Doctor Who is a unique show, and some of its episodes are released via other mediums, but they are still part of the series. By limiting this page to solely episodes released via broadcast methods would be counter-intuitive, as it would remove many stories that readers should know about.
Personally, I think this page should ve renamed, or at least a note at the top of the page specifying certain details.
One last thing - what would happen if a future series of Doctor Who was released on a streaming service? By definition, those episodes would be "webcasts". Think about this, would you? Epsilon (Contact me) 12:09, October 23, 2020 (UTC)
Let's take it from the top.
1. There was precedent for the "televisual story principally concerning Doctor Who" reading, given the presence of HOMEVIDs and Tardisodes. I also note from a comment on this talk page from an admin under the heading "Additions"
I am aware that the article says "television stories" but if we're going to list some minisodes and prequels we may as well list them all, especially as many of them were made available on Red Button and other services that people often view through their TV sets now. Plus many people still view DVDs and Blu-rays on televisions. I think the article title should probably be renamed to take this into account. For this list to be complete it should include all officially filmed Doctor Who stories.
So this precedent has existed since 2015, and should have been renamed since then. If you want to direct your energies anywhere, ask for the page to be renamed. As for the idea that you think we're equating multiple things based on the name of the article, let me point out to you Thread:238917 and Thread:272817, they're not entirely relevant to our discussion, but there's a section in each that you might find helpful.
There's a big difference between creating an article and writing it.
it's a simple necessity to name each article something
The name of this article is not an automatic "I win" button, since all articles must be called something, and articles' names are change all all the time. What's important is instead the lead, which says
The following is a list of Doctor Who televised stories
And using this as the basis for our analysis it's far from clear that your argument even begins to get off the ground.
2. You have invented this viewpoint. This is stated nowhere on the page. Stop trying to sneak this position by us.
3. Again, there is ample precedent for them not being television stories and being on this page.
4. Really all of your arguments boil down to your defense in point 1, yes? The issue is that it's so fundamentally flawed as to render everything else damaged. It's a house built on sand.
6. It actually does, in the talk page, under "Additions". Now, it's not like there was much discussion of it at that time, so obviously we can have that discussion now. But it's very clear that the current standard is what we say it is, and the current intent is "televisual story principally concerning Doctor Who".
7. This is not a personal attack. Zeal is a good thing. Now, let's correct the timeline here, your original edit did not give a reason, that's just untrue. I then reverted it. After that you said it was a webcast and so it didn't belong. I then took a few minutes to look through the list, to see if what you said was true, found counter examples, and put it back accordingly. So, no, you didn't give reasons in your original edit, and after that and I was correcting obviously flawed reasons. Najawin 18:53, October 23, 2020 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.