Talk:List of Doctor Who television stories

	Archives: #1

Animation block

As of right now all the 60s seasons tables on this list has either a “story partially missing” block (yellow) or a “story completely missing” block (red) or both, with the affected stories’ columns coloured in one or the other, but would it be possible to add a new block that informs people that a particular story has been animated, and giving it a third colour (potentially green or blue)? Doesn’t need to override the current colour, it can just be as an extra notice on the respective columns, which tells you “hey, this story is still missing, but it has been animated so you can watch it anyway”. —Danniesen ☎ 10:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I like this idea. Which column would you propose this new colour indicator be added to? Bongo50 ☎ 22:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

See, that’s where I’m stuck. I don’t know how we could and should implement this. It could very easily become ugly to look at if done wrong. Would a format work which is something similar to a "Triangle" in the corner of an Excel column? Danniesen ☎ 22:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that'd be impossible to do, although I'm not personally sure how to attack it. I also don't think it'd work on mobile (which accounts for 66% of our readers so can't be neglected). Perhaps a really thin additional column could be added to one side of the table where this indicator goes? Bongo50 ☎ 23:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That was my initial thought as well, although I worried that it might be too clunky and wouldn’t look good, so I didn’t bring it up at all. Or perhaps something at the top of each column. Danniesen ☎ 00:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Television stories

Given that the very first line of this article is "This is a list of Doctor Who televised stories", I propose that the webcasts and home videos are removed. By definition, they don't belong here. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 20:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

They have in the past been under discussion and were agreed to feature on the list. Danniesen ☎ 21:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion from two years ago wasn't closed by an admin as far as I can tell. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 21:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

In that case, it’s still an ongoing discussion and shouldn’t be changed until closed, as far as I’m aware are the rules. Danniesen ☎ 21:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't removed them since you made me aware of the discussion. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 21:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

No no no… I’m aware. No worries. I’m just pointing it out. Danniesen ☎ 21:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Numbering

Currently, the pages for Heaven Sent and Hell Bent are numbered separately and The Haunting of Villa Diodati, Ascension of the Cybermen and The Timeless Children are numbered as a three-parter.

As of today, this page numbers Heaven Sent and Hell Bent as a two-parter and The Haunting of Villa Diodata as separate from the Ascension of the Cybermen and The Timeless Children. Which is it? I can't find much of a discussion about either. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 18:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Heaven Sent and Hell Bent used to be listed as a two-parter, and I'm not quite certain how that suddenly got changed. In any case, this was just a reversal back to that. As for Haunting being first part of a 3-parter, those others being Ascension and Timeless, this was a debate started by User:Tellymustard at some point, something I personally agree with, but this never came to a consensus and somehow still stayed as a 3-parter. This is something I corrected until that debate has reached a conclusion. —Danniesen ☎ 18:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, correction… I first tried to start that debate by pointing out Chibnall's own word on the matter when the relevant DWM came out, but it didn’t gather much attention. But Tellymustard acted it out without debate. Danniesen ☎ 18:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. We've had many discussions on this in the Lost Forums. Last word was here and here, though.

There wasn't any discussion behind the change to making Heaven Sent and Hell Bent a two-parter.

As for the series 12 finale, could we have a direct quote from DWM 577, please?
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 04:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeaaaaaaahhhhh. That HS/HB change User:Danniesen put back is massively controversial and I didn't catch it. I reverted the one I caught on the actual pages for the episodes. It hasn't been a two parter on this list since 2020. It's one of those subjects where everyone who likes the episodes has opinions. (Including myself.) Najawin ☎ 05:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The Chibnall Quote

Here's the quote from Chris Chibnall about the Series 12 finale being a three-parter. Danniesen ☎ 06:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we want to restart the HS/HB discussion? I tend to take the stance of DWM.

Here at DWM, we've been arguing about all sorts of things - and not just whether to count Face the Raven, Heaven Sent and Hell Bent as one story, two, or three. In the end we went with three - partly because I'm in charge, partly because Steven Moffat agreed when we asked him how he thought we should arrange the Season Survey form, and partly because I want to see if we really do have any influence over Wikipedia. -DWM 495

Given we also have TGWD/TWWL as paired stories rather than a two parter, (as does 495) it makes sense to consider this a trilogy rather than a three parter. (But, of course, there is nuance. Talalay has called them a two parter (although...), as has the BBC's blog where they put up scripts.) Najawin ☎ 07:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That Chibnall quote is pretty persuasive. I'm not sure I would have have painted them as one three-parter myself, but maybe I'm mostly setting Villa Diodatti apart because of the marketing, the unique cast and setting, and the overall Utopia precedent. (We are not having that one out again.)

It's ironic, of course, that this means Chibnall has robbed himself of the 300 spot for The Power of the Doctor. (I will just note quickly that Villa Diodati was written by Maxine Alderton and directed by Emma Sullivan, whereas the prospective two-part finale was written by Chibnall and directed by Jamie Magnus Stone. This would make it unique among BBC Wales multi-parters.)

I'll leave a bit of time to allow for objections to following DWM and Moffat's lead once again on Heaven Sent and Hell Bent.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 09:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hm just one quote to add, though it comes from before broadcast (and therefore before the big reveal of how Villa Diodati fits into the finale). This is Chibnall speaking with Radio Times:

"I love a two-parter. And our two-parters are epic this year. We always knew last year would be those 10 standalone stories, and this year we wanted to weave things in a bit more." (Source)

(Emphasis mine. Note the plural.)
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 09:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, hearing no objections, I'm going to enact the consensus above on Heaven Sent and Hell Bent. Waiting for some more comments on Villa Diodatti, since this is a newer topic under discussion and we have quotes for either side.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 11:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

60th anniversary specials and start of new production

So, the scheduling note regarding the 2023 specials currently reads, (as an aside, this wiki could really stand to import some of the "standard" talk-namespace templates, like wikipedia:Template:talk quote, from wikipedia:Category:Talk namespace templates. The current options, like <blockquote> and {{quote}} (same thing) are really huge and obtrusive, too much so for use when quoting in discussions. IMHO.)

As a first for the show, three special episodes were produced to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the series. Neither are considered to be a part of either series 13 (nor that set of specials) or series 14.

Setting aside the questionable application of "neither" to a set of more than two items, there seems to be growing consensus that there will be no such thing as a "series/season 14" for Doctor Who (2005), and Ncuti Gatwa's debut (special) episode on December 25 will instead mark the premiere of Doctor Who (2003). The new Disney+ show seems to be a separate production, with the commensurate reset of its numbering scheme. (Confusingly, the entry here under the Fifteenth Doctor heading already splits the difference, being labeled "Season 1" while linking to Season 14.)

Assuming it's the case that "Season 14" has been rebooted into a new "Season 1", the question regarding stories 301, 302, and 303 then becomes not, "are they part of series 13 or 14", but, "are they part of Doctor Who (2005) or Doctor Who (2023)? And if the latter, are they the new production's "Series 0"? Three additional "Series 1" pre-specials, along with the upcoming Christmas Special? Or are they just a block of special episodes entirely outside of the regular series cadence? (That was done once before, with the four 2008-10 specials. So, there's even precedent there. It's just never happened before the first regular-season episode of the show premiered.)

Does it still sense to talk about a "series 14" anymore, or to consider the current set of specials part of the 2005-launched BBC Doctor Who production? Signals from RTD and the new production team seem to be pointing in the other direction: To the previous production having concluded with the 60th Anniversary's The Power of the Doctor, the series finale of Doctor Who (2005-2022), and everything helmed by RTD in 2023 (all four specials, and the upcoming regular season) being part of a new, third edition of Doctor Who. (That's my interpretation, anyway. And clearly shared by at least the person who added "Season 1" to this list, under "Fifteenth Doctor".) FeRDNYC ☎ 08:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

See Forum:2023 Naming Scheme Reset. Discussion is ongoing there. Najawin ☎ 09:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Future programs

Alright, so let's discuss this. Should this page include future episodes? I think both Epsilon and SOTO's points are decent here, that some people of each mindset might reasonably expect future episodes to be here or not. Personally, I think that there's a middle option here, putting a spoiler tag immediately before those future episodes, or in the relevant Doctor's era. But that's up for discussion. I don't, however, think that the past-tense argument advanced by Shambala is successful. As I mentioned in the edit history "this is a televised debate" is a somewhat common phrase that indicates present tense. That seems to be a non-starter to me. Najawin ☎ 19:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Excuse my brevity but edit summaries are limited in the number of characters allowed. I'll explain my reasoning at length here.

Aside from User:SOTO's points, which in my opinion sum up the reasoning sufficiently, there is also the fact that historically we have avoided placing future material on most of our pages. I know the spoiler rules have been relaxed a bit, but that doesn't mean we put spoilers anywhere and everywhere that we can. There are two issues at work here.

First, wikis in general (not all, obviously, and this only applies to wikis that cover media that are still ongoing) provide for users who don't want to see spoilers. Placing spoilers in unexpected (or in this case, popular) pages can turn users away, and that is something that every wiki platform abhors. Any new DW fan who may not have seen all of the current material might want to see a list of existing stories, so they know where to start; they don't want to see spoilers.

Second, while this hasn't happened in a while, there have been events in the past where pre-release information was later changed on release, necessitating a pretty hefty cleanup of pages that were affected by the change (see Forum:Why we sometimes protect article creation: the curious case of Dorium Maldavar for one historical example).

It's not really necessary to include unreleased titles on this page; in a relatively short time they will no longer be unreleased and then they can be included.

And one side note, if two admins revert an edit, that might mean that it's something that needs a discussion (like User:Najawin has started here), rather than undoing the reverts. If in doubt, ask the admins for their reasoning if you don't agree with their actions. Shambala108 ☎ 20:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Shambala's position here. We should not be making this into a spoiler page, as I have argued in the past (see the edit history of the page). And I don’t think placing the spoiler tag further down the article will actually make a difference. I believe the entire page will still show up as spoilery, and that should, again, be avoided because those 500-something stories that have gone before are not a spoiler. Furthermore, while I am happy with the relaxation of the spoiler policy, placing content in advance can also go overboard as was the case recently with some information from an issue of Doctor Who Magazine that had yet to release officially. That should not have happened. Danniesen ☎ 22:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

As a point of information, placing the spoiler tag further down doesn't make the entire page show up as "spoilery". The template is added where we place the tag, not at the top of the page. We can very intentionally control where we place it if we wish to. Najawin ☎ 22:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

A possible alternative could be simply to link to List of future releases#Doctor Who or Series 14 (Doctor Who) somewhere in List of Doctor Who television stories#Fifteenth Doctor. This seems a simple way to direct readers towards the existence of further episodes and the wording will make it very clear that the destination page will contain spoilers. Danochy ☎ 00:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Danochy's suggestion is a nice compromise. When a story is released, it can be added, but prior to its release anyone who wants to know more can easily click on it without being spoiled (and let's face it, a lot of DW titles are spoilers). Shambala108 ☎ 00:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I still find myself dramatically unconvinced. The spoiler tag simply solves the problems mentioned, aside from Forum:Why we sometimes protect article creation: the curious case of Dorium Maldavar, which isn't even applicable to the current approach we're taking to spoilers. See Forum:Temporary forums/Changing the Spoiler Policy - we're only allowing official BBC announcements, (well, and stuff from the other relevant publishers) stuff in DWM, and public statements from people involved in the production, and even that third one can at times be considered a leak and removed from this approach. The title listed that's spoilery here was in DWM. I think it's reasonable to expect that people perusing this page might be interested in a confirmed title from DWM. And if they're not, well, they have a spoiler tag immediately before it! Najawin ☎ 01:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This again. I really have to strongly push back against the notion that the "existence of a story is a spoiler".

As Merriam-Webster defines a spoiler...

information about the plot of a motion picture or TV program that can spoil a viewer's sense of surprise or suspensehttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spoiler

A spoiler is a narrative detail. It is not the existence of the story itself. To say so is, frankly, ridiculous.

When you look up a list of Doctor Who television stories, as a casual viewer, you expect to have it be, y'know, complete? It makes a lot of sense to include the titles of the coming episodes. It would, therefore, be unhelpful to exclude these on the basis that someone could potentially encounter a spoiler.

I don't think anyone would actually consider the title of an episode to be a spoiler, as if you're a regular viewer of the series, it's kinda impossible to avoid.

Now I get leaving yet-to-be-broadcast stories off in-universe pages, as technically listing something like The Devil's Chord on Fifteenth Doctor/Appearances technically reveals that the Fifteenth Doctor is in that story, but on pages like these, I think it is entirely appropriate to include said stories with {{spoiler}} at the top of the page 'cos it reveals which Doctor is in the story.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

01:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Just pointing out that every wiki has its own definition of what it considers to be a spoiler; it doesn't matter what an official dictionary definition is. Shambala108 ☎ 01:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue its more based upon how recent a story has been released. I think you'd be hard pushed to find somewhere which considers the mere titles of a coming story to be a spoiler.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

02:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm totally ambivalent to the final decision made here. But, Epsilon, couldn't your point regarding the appearances list also apply here? By seeing that there are some number of unbroadcast episodes in the #Fifteenth Doctor section, doesn't that effectively provide the same piece of spoiler-y information? Danochy ☎ 03:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, this sort of topic again! Short and sweet from me - "TDC" (abbreviated just in case, cos there's always someone) is out there, officially, in the official magazine, revealed by the writer and producer in charge of the show. I see no reason why it can't be added to the list, along with a list of "TBA" for other table cells. Alternatively, there must be some way to pop it behind a "as yet unreleased/upcoming releases" spoiler tag. (I'd also point people to discussing the main page too, since that's now outdated with zero movement on what people think is the best way forward. As a Wiki, sometimes I think we're two steps behind the rest of fandom and the world online.) — Fractal Doctor @ 11:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)