Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Edit Request: The Husbands of River Song

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"The Husbands of River Song" is included in the Series 9 boxset[1], and therefore should be listed under Series 9. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's well documented that series 9 only has 12 episodes--all of which has aired. This goes all the way back to the first Christmas special which was not part of series 1 or series 2 but was included in the series 2 box set. DonQuixote (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well actually, including "Last Christmas" Series 9 has 13 episodes. Christmas specials are grouped with the series they were released on DVD/Blu-ray with, hence the majority of Christmas specials are listed under the following series. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Technically, Christmas specials are their own things and don't really belong with any series, but the article groups them with the individual series according to the box sets. I stand corrected, and I have to say that I'm neutral on the matter. DonQuixote (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"The Husbands of River Song" is included in the Series 9 boxset[2], and therefore needs to be listed under Series 9. Consensus has been reached in the above section. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That's hardly consensus; there is you and one neutral. I would really like some more input. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I realise that, but consensus is unnecessary, there can be no argument, "The Husbands of River Song" is included on the Series 9 boxset, and the way it works is that Christmas specials are grouped with the series they were released on DVD/Blu-ray with. By reverting my edits, you are being disruptive, as you are removing information with no grounds. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That has not always been the case; we also look at production blocks for instance, which negates DVD releases. So i'd like some more input before we change this. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No we don't, we list the Christmas special production block under the series it is grouped with based on boxsets. Anyway, this year's Christmas special was filmed in September closer to the filming of Series 9 than Series 10, which is thought to be beginning filming in May 2016. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Read this: List of Doctor Who home video releases#cite_note-christmas-257. Alex|The|Whovian 23:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That is only the case if the Christmas special is released on DVD/Blu-ray with the following series, it does not negate boxsets. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Please bring up the alleged discussion where it was decided to list them as they're grouped by their DVD releases. Alex|The|Whovian 11:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to provide a discussion to prove my point, we do not list Christmas specials under the following series regardless of boxsets, if this were the case then "The Time of the Doctor" would be listed under Series 8. If we don't group by boxsets how do we group? No reason why it shouldn't be listed under Series 9 has been provided. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You claimed that "the way it works is that Christmas specials are grouped with the series they were released on DVD/Blu-ray with". For something like this to have been decided, there must have been a discussion and consensus on it here on Wikipedia, else this is simply you forcing your opinion of layout without anything to back it. "The Time of the Doctor" was described as a 2013 Special, hence its inclusion where it currently is. There have been several reasons - first and foremost, Christmas Specials are listed as introductory to a series, unless it has already been categorized into a Specials section. Alex|The|Whovian 11:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Why should a Christmas special be considered the introduction to a series if it has no connection to it? The majority of past Christmas specials are listed under the following series because they were released on DVD/Blu-ray with it. There is no reason not to list "The Husbands of River Song" under Series 9. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Easier, tidier, and makes more sense. Correction: The majority of past Christmas specials are listed under the following series because they are introductory to the series (e.g. "The Christmas Invasion" is introductory to and leads into Series 2, just as "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" is to Series 7). The fact that they were released on the same box-sets is an irrelevant coincidence. Alex|The|Whovian 12:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Since when is that the rule? 2.121.226.6 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Has been pretty much since this page was changed from individual tables (where specials had their own tables) that were separate to the series pages, to transcluding the tables directly from the series pages. Alex|The|Whovian 12:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a discussion where this was decided? 2.121.226.6 (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. My attempt to broach the issue of an episode being listed in a series that comes after it. Talk:Doctor_Who_(series_9)/Archive_1#Why_is_Last_Christmas_part_of_this_series. In that case, the contradiction of having the first line of the article saying "The ninth series of the British science fiction television programme Doctor Who premiered on 19 September 2015" and "Last Christmas" listed as the first episode in the table in the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"Last Christmas" is not, actually, listed as the first episode of the series, nor claimed to be. As per List of Doctor Who serials#Series 9 (2015), check the second column entitled "Episode": "Last Christmas" is labeled with a –, and "The Magician's Apprentice" is #1. Alex|The|Whovian 12:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I don't need to provide a discussion to prove my point". Besides, the links for the archives exist on this page for a reason. Alex|The|Whovian 12:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That discussion states that the likely hood of "Last Christmas" being included on the boxset as reason enough to list "Last Christmas" under Series 9, but now boxsets are irrelevant? The discussion you provided does not prove your point but mine. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

How does "Last Christmas" act as an introduction to Series 9? It ties up several Series 8 themes such as Clara and Danny's relationship, and "Death in Heaven" leads directly into it. How exactly does it lead into Series 9? BlueBlue11 (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a point, it doesn't contain any Series 9 themes but it does contain Series 8 themes, it seems as though the only thing keeping under Series 9 is its inclusion on the boxset. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

referring to my earlier comment, I meant "first episode in table" as first listed entry in the table not listed as first episode of Series 9. But I'll rephrase, how about "the contradiction of Series 9 starting on premiered on 19 September 2015, and "Last Christmas" being in the article on Series 9". GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering the Christmas special as an introduction to the series without being part of it made sense and worked back when each series began in Spring and you had a coming soon trailer for it at the end of the Christmas special, but now each series begins in Autumn and subsequently there is no coming soon trailer at the end of the Christmas special and it is followed by an 8–9 month gap before the next series, it would make sense to list Christmas specials under the previous series. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

So, now we're no longer debating on the inclusion of "The Husbands of River Song", but of "Last Christmas"? Alex|The|Whovian 02:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In that it's a Christmas special and we are discussing how Christmas specials are grouped with the series, it is related. Are both "Last Christmas" and "The Husbands..." part of 9? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, gotchya. No. Alex|The|Whovian 10:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

So what about my proposition above? 2.121.226.6 (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There seems to me inconsistency around classifying Christmas specials. I see no reliable source that classifies Christmas specials as 'introductory' specials for the following season. While this could be true of some Christmas specials, it certainly isn't true of all. Delving into whether an episode is 'introductory' to the next season, or thematically part of the previous season seems like original research to me. You could potentially use the production blocks as a more reliable source, though it would change the placement of specials like The Next Doctor, The Doctor, The Widow and the Wardrobe, Last Christmas to be in the preceding seasons instead. Even then, that is contentious. To me this discussion should centre around whether we should change the definition of where specials should be in the series pages. I think using the Complete Series DVDs/BluRays is the most consistent and reliably sourced method. In my opinion, The Husbands of River Song should be added to to the end of the ninth series labeled with a – for the episode number because of that reason. Thoughts?  The Windler talk  13:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, boxsets are the only sourced and indisputable method of classification, considering them as the introduction to the following series without being part of it doesn't work for a lot of Christmas specials and is unsourced and to a certain degree, based on opinion. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex, I was questioning Last Christmas' dubious status as an 'introductory' special for Series 9 rather than its inclusion in the series. I agree with including Husbands of River Song on the Series 9 page. BlueBlue11 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

So are we agreed that boxsets should be used to classify Christmas specials and therefore "The Husbands of River Song" should be listed under Series 9? 2.121.226.6 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Has consensus been reached? 2.121.226.6 (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not quite yet. And there is no rush. If anything, Christmas specials shouldn't be part of the series' articles to begin with. We should take inventory of all the specials and see how they best fit in depending on production and ohter factors (not just DVD releases). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No boxsets should not be used. They are put together by the marketing arm of the BBC not by those that are producing the series. I agree with Edoktor's statement. Also WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY are the appropriate policies for entries. Not WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. MarnetteD|Talk 19:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should just list them on their own as they are separate and don't belong with any series. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

That would cause an unneeded amount of clutter on the List of Episodes page. Definitely disagree with that. Alex|The|Whovian 23:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No it wouldn't, it would be correct and make it clear that Christmas specials are separate. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

And also cluttered. Create a sandbox version of your proposal and see for yourself. Alex|The|Whovian 11:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability comes above layout in Wikipedia's policies. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with GraemeLeggett. IMO on a list this large I don't think it would make it any more cluttered than it already is. Also, if memory serves the Xmas specials were separate from the season blocks for the first few years of the revived series. MarnetteD|Talk 12:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

So are we agreed that Christmas specials should be listed separately? 2.121.226.6 (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you plan on linking to these new sub-sections? Also cluttering the series overview table? Alex|The|Whovian 13:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

As GraemeLeggett said, verifiability come above layout on Wikipedia. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This is concerning linking to the sections, not layout or verifiability. Please answer the question accordingly. Alex|The|Whovian 13:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The same way as each series. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this what you propose to link to the sections for each special? Yeesh. And what of the 2012 and 2013 Christmas specials? Alex|The|Whovian 13:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that, other than the fact that "The Snowmen" comes in the middle of Series 7, although we could list Part 1 and Part 2 separately, like with Season 4 and Season 21. 2.121.226.6 (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Per MarnetteD, GraemeLeggett and IP (and as implied on another Talk Page), I find it misleading to include Specials in series tables when they aren't part of that series. Unfortunately, Doctor Who can't be neatly arranged in series tables :) There is no rush, but we should find a better way of listing them. Stephenb (Talk) 15:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Well I think the best option is leaving the Christmas specials up to "A Christmas Carol" where they are, and moving "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" to Series 6, "Last Christmas" to Series 8 and "The Husbands of River Song" to Series 9, as with all them there is no coming soon trailer at the end and they are followed by a long gap before the next series (for the first two, 9 months). 2.121.226.6 (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It's absolutely terrible. And Series 7 can't be separated! You're making an entire planet out of a molehill. And why are we basing this entire thing on the Next Time trailer? Where your verifability when it comes to that, or are you making that decision yourself? Yes, you are. Alex|The|Whovian 23:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you realise that can be applied to your logic as well? BlueBlue11 (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Not when it comes to the WP:STATUSQUO. Alex|The|Whovian 23:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

None of this discussion about grouping will affect such as {{Doctor Who episodes}} or {{Doctor Who Episodes By Steven Moffat}} either. What do you plan to do with them? Expand them further with more subgroups? Alex|The|Whovian 00:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I was with attaching "The Husbands of River Song" to the end of Series 9 up until suggestions were made about swapping NUMEROUS Christmas specials around. Everything is fine as it is. "The Time of the Doctor" should NOT be attached to the start of Series 8, since it's completely unrelated and isn't included on the box-set. "Last Christmas" SHOULD be attached to Series 9 since it IS included on the box-set and is not really a stand-alone special, as it leads directly into Series 9 (and it's usually the norm for specials to be attached to the series that comes after them). However, although "The Husbands of River Song" is pretty stand-alone from Series 9 - therefore meaning it should be attached to Series 10, as per the norm - despite being broadcast just three weeks later, it IS going to be included on the box-set. I firmly believe we won't see a full series in 2016. With filming apparently beginning in May, it looks like the BBC is moving the show back to the Spring. I think that the only episode we will get in 2016 is the Christmas special. Therefore, THIS 2016 Christmas special should be attached to the beginning of Series 10. It's difficult to explain and I hope people understand what I mean. "The Husbands of River Song" should be attached to the end of Series 9, or left on it's own so Series 10 can begin afresh with the 2016 Christmas special being a lead-in to the first episode of Series 10, logically estimated to begin towards the beginning of 2017. 109.151.163.73 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

No sources have stated that the 2016 Christmas Special will be the only episode that airs next year. BlueBlue11 (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that IF that's the case, that's what'll happen. There's absolutely no way that 12 full episodes will air next year. It's literally impossible to film all of it. If only half of Series 10 airs, then the 2016 special will be slap-bang in the middle of it. If not, then it'll be right at the beginning. This is unless, of course, we get the announcement that they start filming the new series in just a fortnight. If not, then it's impossible to fit all 12 episodes of Series 10 in before Christmas.109.151.163.73 (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

All of this is your own personal and original research. Alex|The|Whovian 23:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, we all know that certain episodes aren't part of a specific series, yet for some reason you're still determined to keep it listed alongside them? Last Christmas was filmed alongside the rest of Series 8, was broadcast closer to Series 8, continued themes and plot points from Series 8, and the Series 8 finale led directly into it. Yet because it is on the box-set it is considered part of Series 9? That's illogical. I understand it may look more cluttered, or cause issues with Series 7, but to arguing that Last Christmas belongs to Series 9 or The Husbands of River Song belongs to Series 10 is not just illogical - it's inaccurate. And I do believe it is Wikipedia's job to be accurate - not necessarily to look good. What is needed here is not a discussion about any sort of system to use to determine where to list Christmas Specials - it should be on a case by case basis. 78.146.32.2 (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup. No Special is part of a series. Doesn't matter about Box Sets, we're talking about the broadcasts of episodes. None of them were shown as part of any series, and therefore it is misleading to include them in any series table. Stephenb (Talk) 22:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Each special should have its own individual listing. The only exceptions should be situations where the specials are grouped, for example that 2009 Specials, or 2013 Specials. Series 7 presents the unique problem of featuring the 2012 Christmas Special in the middle of the Series, but that's something which can be resolved with the use of Series 7a and Series 7b - something the BBC themselves used. 78.146.32.2 (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Then opposing my previous views in other discussions, I'm going to suggest splitting this article into classic and revived episode articles. Having separate rows for each special will cause this article to be far too long. I still disagree, however, with splitting Series 7. Alex|The|Whovian 00:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not for each special - simply for the Christmas specials that stand alone. Adding 7 more little boxes won't lengthen the page much longer than it already is. If someone's willing to scroll through the current length, they'll be willing to scroll through a little more. Splitting the pages just results in more work needing done. As for splitting Series 7, that's not really your decision? By which I mean it's a choice the BBC made. You can still check on the BBC website [3] where it lists the second half as Series 7 Part 2. To paraphrase a certain Time Lord, these things have happened, they are facts. It's our job to document them, not alter them. 78.146.32.2 (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Nor is it your decision, it's consensus. Series 7 was also advertised in its entirety as Series 7, and I could use the (somewhat unfounded) argument above of using boxsets to determine the display - Series 7 was also released as an entire set. It's been listed as an entire set up until now with no issues at all. Alex|The|Whovian 02:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, consensus is all fine and dandy when it comes to certain things, but not when it skews the facts. The moment you start throwing around consensus as a reason for doing something then this website loses its integrity. If we all agreed to forgo seasons completely, should we do that? Not at all. Because then it'd be factually lacking. My point is, that factually Last Christmas is not part of Series 9. The Husbands of River Song is not part of Series 10. No matter how they're released on boxsets, they are not part of those series. Those are facts. And if we list them under those series then what we are doing is presenting factually incorrect information. We can note the boxsets they were released with on their individual pages, but those boxsets should not be used as a guide. 78.146.32.2 (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If you'd actually read the discussion, you would note that I was against using the boxsets to determine how they're laid out. I was merely putting myself in their (the people who used that as an argument) shoes for the sake of that. I agree with not using boxsets; I disagree against your view of where the specials should be (and yes, I am allowed to do that - disagree). Alex|The|Whovian 02:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with splitting the article into a "classic" section and a "revived section". Because it's all the same show. The BBC have never made the distinction between classic and new Doctor Who and they regarded it as one show from the start, despite the fact that the series numbers were restarted. BlueBlue11 (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that the best option is using boxsets as it is sourced, it is indisputable and it is free from opinion. The producers have input and certain degree of control over the boxsets, marketing do not have complete control. It is incorrect to list Christmas specials separately as most did not get a standalone DVD/Blu-ray release. It is wrong to ignore boxsets and other DVD/Blu-ray releases, it is ignoring and going against an indisputable source. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue with using DVD/Blu-ray releases is that they vary! Look [4] You can buy Time of the Doctor including A Christmas Carol, The Doctor, The Widow and the Wardrobe, and the Snowmen. So do we include those in a section of their own? Using DVD/Blu-ray releases causes problems. Last Christmas and The Husbands of River Song are both available on the Series 9 boxset [5], yet neither of them belong to the 9th Series as proven by the fact the box cover notes that the set has has "all 12 episodes". Christmas Specials are just that - Special. Standalone. Not part of a series. 78.146.32.2 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes there are problems with using boxsets. Maybe we should go by broadcast and production, meaning that "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" would be under Series 6, "Last Christmas" would be under Series 8 and "The Husbands of River Song" would be under Series 9, as they were all broadcast and produced much closer to the previous series. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. If we're listing specials separately, I recommend that we do not add them to the overview table, but instead create something similar to what has already existed before, but in a manner more fitting to the currently existing content. Alex|The|Whovian 11:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

We still have the problem of "The Snowmen" airing in the middle of Series 7, so as I said before we should go by broadcast and production, meaning that "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" would be under Series 6, "Last Christmas" would be under Series 8 and "The Husbands of River Song" would be under Series 9, as they were all broadcast and produced much closer to the previous series.. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about the specials being completely split. Placing them based on when they were broadcast and produced is original research. Alex|The|Whovian 12:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Then using boxsets is the best option as it is sourced and therefore indisputable. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to re-read this entire discussion on why boxsets aren't to be used. I now concur that splitting them into their own sections is the only reliable direction to take this. Alex|The|Whovian 13:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Your right, listing them separately is the best and most accurate way to list them, but how to we overcome the fact that "The Snowmen" aired in the middle of Series 7, despite being a standalone special, the only option I can see is listing Part 1 and Part 2 separately. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think for clarity sake and simplicity, the Xmas specials should be attached to the series (as currently is). The article is very long as it is and splitting the specials out, creates quite a few extra headings which I think is not worth the trouble, even if it is more reliable. You'd have to split both 2013 specials, you'd even have to split "The Next Doctor" from the 2008-10 specials unless you could source that those are all grouped. Even though I believe the boxsets is a factually OK, others have disagreed. But in comparison to splitting each special out, potentially splitting Series 7, I think the clarity of the article and the individual pages that these tables are transcended from is far better off in its current form, therefore think that Husbands of River Song should remain in its own section until we see what happens with Series 10.  The Windler talk  12:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)n

I also don't see why people are so against using boxsets, I have not come across a good reason for not using boxsets, it is sourced and indisputable. Listing them separately can be disputed as several are part of a story arc and most didn't get a standalone release. As I said before, the producers have input and certain degree of control over the boxsets, marketing do not have complete control. It is wrong to ignore boxsets and other DVD/Blu-ray releases, it is ignoring and going against an indisputable source. It is ridiculous that a perfectly reliable source is being dismissed, when in any other case it would be acceptable. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It would most certainly not be acceptable - this is a discussion here, not a "my way or the highway". Besides, there's an entire article dedicated to the boxsets. Alex|The|Whovian 13:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you propose we list Christmas specials? 5.67.73.51 (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In the article I linked to? In their respective "X Doctor releases" but as their own row, with the first cell not as a numbered series but as a dash ("–"). In this article, I've proposed it above elsewhere. Alex|The|Whovian 13:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I say we go ahead and make the change. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

After looking at some other to TV shows on Wikipedia and tthis list I've come to the conclusion that having one rule for all Christmas specials is impossible, as the production schedule and broadcast format has evolved over the last 10 years and will only continue to evolve over time so it’s probably best to decide what is best for each special individually my idea is to list them sparely leving the next doctor, the end of time, the snowmen and the time of the doctor as they currently are as this is how they fit best it won't be that defrent to how the list looked befor the change to using the individual series lists also will the same thing be done for the 5 doctors as this is also a special 2.26.206.85 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, although "The Snowmen" is technically a standalone special, it airs in the middle of Series 7 and it furthers the story arc. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the people that are saying that the Christmas special for 2015 'The Husbands of River Song' should be included with series 9. Im also of the opinion that from series 8 onwards Christmas Specials are epilogue to a series rather than a prologue as it used to be. (Time of the Doctor was of course on its own and that is reflected in the Wiki article anyway). I like others hope to see this rectified soon. Lotrjw (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Separate all specials that aren't the 2008-10 specials, 2013 specials or The Snowmen (including The Five Doctors), and add a new series overview concerning just the specials, removing the specials from the main overview. Alex|The|Whovian 01:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

So is there a consensus to split the necessary specials? Alex|The|Whovian 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is consensus. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that this particular discussion is over, and what I'm about to say doesn't add anything of importance to it, but I'd just like to say: I CALLED IT! This is part of the comment I posted in this discussion about a month ago: "I firmly believe we won't see a full series in 2016. With filming apparently beginning in May, it looks like the BBC is moving the show back to the Spring. I think that the only episode we will get in 2016 is the Christmas special. Therefore, THIS 2016 Christmas special should be attached to the beginning of Series 10. It's difficult to explain and I hope people understand what I mean. "The Husbands of River Song" should be attached to the end of Series 9, or left on it's own so Series 10 can begin afresh with the 2016 Christmas special being a lead-in to the first episode of Series 10, logically estimated to begin towards the beginning of 2017. 109.151.163.73 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)" . <-- Comment I made back on Boxing Day - yes, my IP address appears to have changed. Got it pretty spot on? :) (http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-01-22/doctor-who-showrunner-steven-moffat-quits-to-be-replaced-by-broadchurch-creator-chris-chibnall). Ahem. Sorry for any inconvenience caused by this post. 86.173.91.19 (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Split

All specials have now been split, and a specials table has been filled out (including The Snowmen, which just links to the row for the episode in Series 7's table). The colours were picked accordingly from the respective DVD releases for the specials, and also to be WCAG AAA Compatible. Alex|The|Whovian 12:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Each special section needs an 'Episode' column with a '–' in. Also, the colour for "Last Christmas" should be darker. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

They don't need the Episode column, as the usage for that is to determine which number it is in a season/series. Given that they do not belong to and are not seasons/series, there's no need for it. And the colour for Last Christmas was picked from its DVD case and specifically picked to be different from the other blues, but if you believe there's a better one, go for it (as long as it's compliant with WP:COLOR). Alex|The|Whovian 14:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There are still pages and templates that need changing. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Now that it has been put into practice, I don't think that listing the specials separately works, especially seeing as some specials include a reference to the arc of the following series and there is a direct lead-in to some specials in the finale of the previous series. It also doesn't work with "The Snowmen", even with the header, it is still listed under Series 7 as it is in the table. The specials section in the Series overview doesn't work, it shouldn't be separate. It turns out that this wasn't the best option. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a consensus to split, so it has been split. This isn't the sort of thing we can go back and forth on, editing and reverting, editing and reverting. Once it's done, it's done. And the main overview would be far too crowded with the specials included all in one table, hence the separate table for specials. Alex|The|Whovian 23:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I reckon that the the Snowmen should be included in the split, since the arguement that it should remain there because it contributes to the rest of the series is flawed, as the Christmas Invasion and the Runaway Bride also contribute to the series they preceded.Theoosmond (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

And your proposal for how Series 7 should then be dealt with? Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally I would have had the Christmas specials before series 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 stay and from Last Christmas they start going at the end, but I can live with what the consensus have decided upon. AlexTheWhovian if you want something done about series 7 then it could be split so that you get the first 5 episodes then the Christmas special for 2012 then series 7 part 2 in 2013, but you could then argue that series 6 needs splitting. I leave this out there as Im happy with how it is now. Lotrjw (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Since this thing about spliting off Christmas Specials is becoming too much of a row, should all pages be reverted, with the Christmas Specials on all series pages. Not all editors agree with this (not including me), so you can't really call this a consensus.Theoosmond (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with considering the Christmas specials up to "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" as a prologue to the following series (as before), and considering Christmas specials from "Last Christmas" onwards as an epilogue to the previous series. There isn't consensus any more as the majority of users involved with this discussion (including myself) disagree with listing them separately. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

We manage a consensus, execute the edits, some editors whinge (especially those with WP:OWN beahviour - no names), and then apparently consensus has disappeared after a solid discussion and all edits are reverted. This is all a waste of time. Now there will be no consensus, as I solidly state that no edits should have made from the originals. No full splits, no partial splits, nothing. Keep LC in Series 9 and THORS in Series 10. All of it. I disagree with all of it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I just cannot agree with LC in Series 9 and THORS in Series 10, the writers just dont intend them to be that way anymore! I will stick with either keeping them separate as now, or Christmas specials up to "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" as a prologue to the following series (as before), and considering Christmas specials from "Last Christmas" onwards as an epilogue to the previous series. Lotrjw (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I disagree. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Who has put them back BTW? It seems odd that everything has been suddenly reverted! Lotrjw (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's no consensus on what should be done, is there? Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Christmas specials

After the split, most Christmas specials are titled "Special (YYYY)", but the 2015 special is titled "Christmas special (2015)". We should decide on either of those and use it consistently. I'd prefer "Christmas special", but I'm not strongly opposed to the "Special" form either. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The 2015 special's header was modified accordingly to match when Last Christmas was split. Alex|The|Whovian 12:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I didn't realize it's still in progress. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem! All splits have now been completed. Alex|The|Whovian 12:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not what I expected... the christmas special are completely detached from everything. Even those where they were very much part of their respective series (especially up until 2010). I though we were only going to list the later specials separately. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems as if a re-reading of the discussion is necessary, Edokter. (Also a noting that this is in the wrong section...) Why would we do only a few? Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"Closing Time" is completely gone from Series 6... That can't be right; That is just one instance where the special is part of the series. Whatever is discussed, that is no reason to throw logic out the window. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

... Pardon? "Closing Time" is exactly where it always was at List of Doctor Who serials#Series 6 (2011) and Doctor Who (series 6)#Episodes. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I mislooked. But those specials which are produced within the series production blocks must return to their respective series' articles. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

So, you revert all edits while saying "I am not alone in this; back to status quo", when the other reverting editor has mentioned on my talk page that they actually agree with the edits, meaning that you are the only user that disagrees so far. You decide to take on an "I disagree so it shouldn't be done, which is listed under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, and you provide a one-sentence reason which has no foundation behind it for your reverts. I expected better of an admin; seems that I was wrong. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that there's no consensus for any sort of split, the complete status quo has been restored. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think contacting the BBC on this one is the only way to settle the matter, I am happy to do this unless someone else wants to? Lotrjw (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have contacted the BBC at doctorwhoenquiries@bbc.com and written the email below: "Dear sir/madam

Im trying to settle an argument over how Christmas episodes of Doctor Who should now be considered, for listing on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Doctor_Who_serials#Christmas_specials. From 2005 to 2013 this was very obvious, as in they preceded a series unless there was a good reason they didnt, eg "The Next Doctor", "The End of Time" (parts 1 and 2), "The Snowmen" and "The Time of the Doctor" couldnt possibly be considered to precede a series in the same way as the others.

From Last Christmas onward there appears to be a shift though, partly due to the full series airing in the Autumn slot instead of the spring. So the Christmas specials appear to follow rather than precede a series, eg "Last Christmas" seems to be associated with series 8 and "The Husbands of River Song" seems to be associated with series 9. Please can someone confirm what the official status is so that the argument can be settled once and for all.

Regards"

I hope that once a response is given that the argument can be settled, as it will be considered straight from the BBC!Lotrjw (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It is highly doubted that it will be considered, as it is not a reliable source given that the reply, if any, will not be publicly accessible. The reply will be from the BBC Customer Service, and not from someone who is directly involved with the series. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In that case I say in the absence of anything else official we go by the DVD/Bluray boxsets for all series from 2005 onward. So that would keep everything until "Last Christmas" as is and place "The Husbands of River Song" in series 9 also. I dont think anyone can argue that "The Husbands of River Song" isnt on the series 9 boxset and hence the BBC obviously consider it a part of series 9! Bluray at BBC Shop:http://www.bbcshop.com/doctor-who/doctor-who-the-complete-ninth-series-blu-ray/invt/bbcbd0327 DVD at BBC Shop: http://www.bbcshop.com/box-sets/doctor-who-the-complete-series-9-dvd/invt/bbcdvd4066 Lotrjw (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, please indent your replies correctly. Secondly, please read this entire discussion again - using boxsets has been discussed and denied. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No reason has been provided as to why boxsets can't be used. As I have said before, the producers have input and a certain degree of control over boxsets, they are official and the only sourced method of listing them. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree re boxsets but we have to define a system on how that works that we can all agree on. I suggest that as far as the Christmas episodes go the first box set they appear on is the one that counts eg:

"The Christmas Invasion" was first on the series 2 complete boxset,

"The Runaway Bride" was first on the series 3 complete boxset,

"Voyage of the Damned" was first on the series 4 complete boxtset,

"The Next Doctor" and "The End of Time" were first on the Specials (2008–10) boxset,

"A Christmas Carol" was first on the series 6 complete boxset,

"The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" and "The Snowmen" were first on the series 7 complete boxset

"The Time of the Doctor" was first on the "The Time of the Doctor" boxset, (with other Matt Smith Christmas specials that were on previous boxset so they dont count from this boxset),

"Last Christmas" was first on the boxset "Doctor Who – The 10 Christmas Specials" (with other Christmas specials that were on previous boxset so they dont count from this boxset)

"The Husbands of River Song" is going to be on its first box set the series 9 complete boxset

In this scenario "The Next Doctor", "The End of Time", "The Time of the Doctor" and "Last Christmas" arent released on a compleate series boxset or, as in the case of "Last Christmas", is on another boxset first. So these 4 should be listed separate to series.

I hope this can be considered an acceptable idea. Lotrjw (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"The Christmas Specials" is a compilation not a boxset, the first boxset "Last Christmas" was included in is Series 9. 92.40.248.107 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

OK so now we are going to have to decide whether a boxset counts if its a compilation boxset? Its still a boxset so we need to keep that consistent at the very least, else no one will ever be able to agree on anything and we risk the page being taken down for no agreement! Compromises have to be made and I feel what I have set out is the best compromise. Lotrjw (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

To me the safest option appears to be including specials with the series that they were produced in. This way there can be no argument for each case.

"The Christmas Invasion" - Series 2

"The Runaway Bride" - Series 3

"Voyage of the Damned" - Series 4

"The Next Doctor" and The End of Time - 2008-10 specials

"A Christmas Carol" - Series 6

"The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" - Series 6 (this was filmed in Sep/Oct 2011, while the rest of Series 6 was filmed in July 2010-July 2011 and Series 7 was filmed in Feb-Nov 2012, so I would include it in Series 6 personally)

"The Snowmen" - Series 7

"The Time of the Doctor" - 2013 specials

"Last Christmas" - Series 8

"The Husbands of River Song" - Series 9 BlueBlue11 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's just stick to the old system and consider Christmas specials as introductory to the following series, it's the only way, other ways will result in arguments as has been shown here. If it isn't broke don't fix it. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh Please, the whole point it IS broke so thats why we are discussing it! Lotrjw (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Boxsets are the only way, they are sourced and official, it isn't up to us to decide which series the specials are considered to be part of, it is up to the producers, who, as I have said before, have input and a certain degree of control over boxsets. No reason has been given as to why boxsets shouldn't be used, if a Christmas special is included on a series boxset, then it is clearly considered as part of that series by the BBC and the producers of the show. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Right so by that logic Husbands of River Song should be treated as part of Series 9, contradicting your comment 14 minutes earlier where you said that Christmas specials should be treated as introductory episodes for the following series? BlueBlue11 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Christmas specials were considered part of the following season in the RTD era - and wiki has just stuck with that for Moffat without any real evidence of this. In the latest DWM, Moffat stated that series 10 will be '12 episodes and a Christmas Special' - thus Husbands of River Song is not part of series 10 - but Wiki will almost certainly group it in by their own convention regardless. 2.222.71.129 (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Series 8 and 9 were both referred to as 12 episodes and Christmas special as well. Also I have thought of a reason why boxsets shouldn't be used; "Last Christmas" was probably released on the Series 9 boxset becuase the Series 8 boxset would have had to have been released after Christmas to include it, meaning that money would be lost as there wouldn't even be part of the series released in time for Christmas. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

What I would like to know where was the discussion and consensus in December 2014 for the Christmas specials being included with series anyway? In the edit history, which I have spent a good long time going through, it appears that "AlexTheWhovian" implemented the changes and no one has challenged him until now! As such I say until this is sorted the Christmas specials should be reverted back to what they were before "AlexTheWhovian" changed them! Lotrjw (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Um, what? Did you bother checking the archives for this page? Perhaps you'll find something in there. Great idea. Or is this a point-and-blame issue with you? Continue with that and you'll be reported. There's no consensus to split them in any way. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

OK apologies if you feel offended, my point is though that as consensus has broken down lets go back to the original way they were done until there can be an agreement! EG how they were on 09:31, 27 December 2014. Lotrjw (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

2014? You mean before this page went from separate listings to transcluded from the season/series pages? What good what that do?! You would be removing over a year's worth of edits. Consensus has broken down about splitting them in any format, so they should remain in their respective seasons that they're in now until consensus is gained again. Which is how the page is right now. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well if we go back but add all info except formatting that would be good, as I notice that we dont even have minisodes included as we used to, they are episodes they should be back too! Lotrjw (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Did you check the archives? Again, all of this has already been discussed. The minisodes are all at List of special Doctor Who episodes. They are not episodes that count towards the total story count, hence - not included. This is reviving a long-and-gone discussion that was solidly agreed upon by many editors. If you have an issue with it, bring it up in a new discussion. Until then - stay on the real topic that this conversation was about - the Christmas specials in the current version of the page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The inclusion of the Christmas specials was a result of the decision to transclude the individual series pages (the edit in question). Aside: I'm having trouble finding a link to the transclusion discussion, I remember there being one. We don't have to undo that edit to separate the Christmas specials (if so decided) just take them out of the series article tables and transclude them separately. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I found 2 comments on the minisodes in the archives for this talk page, I personally cant see how that was consensus to remove them from the main episode list. Sorry if people feel this is dragging up stuff, but its important. Lotrjw (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Because they're not episodes? BlueBlue11 (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Minisodes are irrelevant to this discussion. Back to Christmas specials, I think that Christmas specials from "Last Christmas" onwards should be listed under the previous series as Series 8, 9 and 10 have all been described by Steven Moffat and others as 12 episodes and Christmas special. Also, off-subject, but in the Series overview, under serials, for Series 9 it says 6 when it should be 7. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett I didnt see your comment earlier, but yes that is the edit in question. I suppose you are right that undoing back to that would create a lot of work, I still think we should put the situation of how the Christmas episodes are to how they were before that edit until consensus is reached, or at least the ones from the Steven Moffat era of the show, as there seems to be consensus on the Russell T Davies era of the show. When consensus is reached on the Steven Moffat Christmas specials then whatever is decided can be implemented at that point.

As far as minisodes are concerned some are very much part of the story and should be listed if they are considered cannon at least, as it would be good to have the story in order, this would also include episode prequels as there were on some of the series 7 and I think series 6 episodes. Maybe with the prequels a box next the episode in the series table so each series wouldn't become too cluttered.

I dont think it matters if the minisodes dont have story numbers, as its the ongoing story and being able to put them in a coherent order is more important, episode or serial numbering isnt effected by the minisodes being there. Also I dont suggest taking away from the separate minisode page that is fine as it is.Lotrjw (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop posting here about minisodes, they are irrelevant to this discussion. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

OK I will take that to the other section. Lotrjw (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Series 8 and 9 were both referred to as 12 episodes and Christmas special. Christmas specials from "Last Christmas" onwards should be listed under the previous series. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

yes but the complete sires 9 box set will include the 2014 and 15 Christmas specials and the complete sires 8 only had the 12 regular episodes this list needs a format that will not confuse readers not familiar with the series in 5 + years when the per broadcast descriptions have long been forgotten and the DVD box sets are all most people know and it will only be confusing to list something in series 8 and it be on the sires 9 DVD i don't object to the 12th doctor specials being on there own as it dose not seam possible to have a signal rule that tells users how to list all specials as the sires format has evolved and will continue to evolve in the the years to come2.26.206.85 (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Boxsets are not reliable, how episodes are released tends to be driven by profit. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

how are they not reliable as they are produced by the BBC and approved by the poducton team plus the proper series box sets don't repeat episodes only the individual DVDs and the limited collections editions also shorly there whood be legal issues if the box sets like the complet 8th season dint includ all season 8 episodes 2.26.206.85 (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

However, if the boxset included extra stuff, then there wouldn't be any legal issues. So, that's not much of an argument for Christmas specials being a part of the same series as the boxsets. DonQuixote (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So if we use boxsets we basically have two options as far as I can see, either we use the method I described above on 4 January 2016 at 14:44 or we look at full series boxsets and then if a Christmas episode doesnt appear on a series boxset then its listed seperately or with other specials that were brodcast with it, aka "The Time Of The Doctor" with "Day of the Doctor" and "The Next Doctor" with "Planet of the Dead", "The Waters of Mars" & "The End of Time". So which do people prefer? Lotrjw (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a legal expert so I'm not going to debate the legal issues after this point but the season box sets don't treat the Christmas specials as any thing other than part of the season that they are released on they are not season + Christmas specials but just season box sets and I still don't understand how the box sets aren't valid source 2.26.206.85 (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose. After careful consideration, due to a complete lack of reasons not to, I think that we should list Christmas specials based on boxsets. 5.67.73.51 (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Is a consensus on boxsets being reached? my last question still stands on how we count boxsets though, either we use the method I described above on 4 January 2016 at 14:44 or we look at full series boxsets and then if a Christmas episode doesnt appear on a series boxset then its listed seperately or with other specials that were brodcast with it, aka "The Time Of The Doctor" with "Day of the Doctor" and "The Next Doctor" with "Planet of the Dead", "The Waters of Mars" & "The End of Time". Lotrjw (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

it probably whood be best to use the numbered season box sets as collections like the 10 Christmas specials and the 50th anniversary box sets collect episodes using other categories than which season episodes belong to2.26.206.85 (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You should be exterminated by the daleks for making such a poor pun XD!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Has consensus to use boxsets been reached? 5.67.73.51 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears that way unless someone else decides they dont like it! I hope not, as the numbered boxsets seem the most sensible way to go that is indisputable and official. Lotrjw (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we go ahead and make the change? 5.67.73.51 (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any agreement on any format, so no. Production blocks would be the better choice. Remember that this series is primarily a broadcast series, not a bunch of boxsets. If that means that the series 8 and 9 specials precede the series, then so be it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the two most recent specials were filmed in their own blocks separate from any other series, but were filmed much closer to the previous series than the following series, so I reckon the two most recent series should be part of the previous series. And boxsets, I think, would be a good indicator of what series the specials are in.Theoosmond (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

the problem with using puducton schedule is the old series which frequently filmed the 1st story of the following season at the end of the previous season like how using puducton the Dalek invasion of earth whood be the end of season 1 not the 2nd story of season 2 in fact robot the beginning of the 12th season was filming on location while planet of the spiders was in the studio the only whay to tell wich season story's belong to is to go by how they are released to the public as indicated by the box sets in fact there don't seem to be any real reason not to use the numbers season box sets2.26.206.85 (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

In the revived series, in which all the Christmas specials have been aired, all the episodes in a series were filmed with the other episodes of the same series, and not with episodes of different series, so your arguement is flawed.Theoosmond (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree we should only look at the revived series, the classics are fine how they have always been, that is whatever we all eventually decide for the listing of Christmas specials. Im still in agreement about boxsets BTW. Lotrjw (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Convenience (arbitrary) break

A break because the edit link is now a long way up the top of this section. And a pause to suggest something. Given the large amount of text already expended on discussion, is it now time to make suggestions and gauge opinion on them to see if we are anywhere near a consensus on the subjects of how Christmas specials are handled and the sources used. I also suggest that where possible, the suggestions are as brief and independent of each other as possible, and the opinions of support/opposition are equally so. How do people feel about that? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean we briefly state our opinion on the matter again, or rather which position we agree with? If so I will go with the numbered boxsets. Oh and the classics should be left out of this we just focus on the revived series'. Lotrjw (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant doing something like this (examples only)

That the current method of listing Christmas specials is a disputed issue

• Agree - [name of editor1]
• Disagree - [name of editor2]
• Agree - [name of editor3]

The issue of Christmas specials is only applicable to the revived series

• Agree [name of editor3]
• Agree [name of editor4]

If you see what I mean? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

ah so each method needs listing then we say if we agree with it I get that. so who is going to put up the different methods so we can say if we agree? Lotrjw (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

My view is that I oppose any form of splitchange. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Alex the whovian would you be opposed to using the numbered boxset? This wouldn't be a split! Lotrjw (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There. Modified my answer. Remember: This section is for what you think should happen, not another discussion area. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If it helps with husbands of river song it is included in the DWM season survay but last cristmas is not 2.26.206.85 (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC) I suport using numbered box sets 2.26.206.85 (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll layout things more formally, I've tried to phrase neutrally. There might be a couple of obvious things to agree, but it never hurts to be clear on these matters. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This dispute is about how Christmas specials are listed within this article (most are currently included as part of a series)

• Agree - we are not talking about any other specials at this time. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree - 5.67.73.111 (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• coment - there should be no difference in how Wikipedia trets specials regardless of wether they are Christmas specials or other specials 2.26.206.85 (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - what even is this section? The entire discussion is about how they're listed. This is just wanting many "agree" statements. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• AgreeLotrjw (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree BlueBlue11 (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree  The Windler talk  14:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree Etron81 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - This section, in my opinion, is a pointless vote, and not required. I agree with what AlexTheWhovian said a few lines up.Theoosmond (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue of Christmas specials is only applicable to the revived series

• Agree - obvious perhaps, but scope should be defined clearly. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree - 5.67.73.111 (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - ??? Christmas Specials only appeared in the revived series! Another statement just wanting "agree" statements. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree Lotrjw (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree BlueBlue11 (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree  The Windler talk  14:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree the only other special it could apply to is the Five Doctors, which has already been historically considered part of season 20 despite production and airdate Etron81 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree - Theoosmond (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Christmas specials should be included as part of a series when the balance of sources indicate it.

• Agree. Though sources may need to be evaluated on case-by-case basis. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. 2.26.206.85 (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree when they're kept how it currently is, Disagree upon any other arrangement. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry Im unsure what is meant by:"Christmas specials should be included as part of a series when the balance of sources indicate it." so Im unable to say which way I side with.Lotrjw (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree BlueBlue11 (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree  The Windler talk  14:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree isn't this what Wikipedia does by default? Etron81 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree - Theoosmond (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The release of Christmas specials as parts of boxsets is a valid source to link specials with series

• Comment - unsure at moment. In the absence of conflicting sources maybe but borderline. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree - 5.67.73.111 (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree Boxsets should not be used as a basis for how they are listed. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

why2.26.206.85 (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This section is for our opinions only, not discussion. Please respect this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree Lotrjw (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree BlueBlue11 (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree - As in those from the Complete Series boxsets and are used as the image in infobox on each of the respective series pages.  The Windler talk  14:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree as long as this only apllays to the season boxsets 2.26.206.85 (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree in terms of the "Complete Series" releases Etron81 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree - We want to use all the reliable sources we have. However, we shouldn't use boxsets as the only source.Theoosmond (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume if we get enough people agreeing then we basically have a consensus, I like this it is clear!Lotrjw (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The 2016 Christmas special will blatantly be a prologue episode for Series 10, so I fail to see why Husbands of River Song should still be listed on Series 10 and not Series 9. BlueBlue11 (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes BlueBlue11 you are right, its been announced (albeit unfortunately), that series 10 will be in 2017 and will be Steven Moffat's last. So I think this debate is finally closed and we can finally agree that Husbands of River Song should be part of series 9, just as the BBC have included it on the series 9 Box set. Lotrjw (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we go ahead and make the change? 5.67.73.111 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Im happy for the change to be made if others are. Lotrjw (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree in the face of this new news. It should be kept where it is, with the 2016 Christmas Special included once there is more information on it, and rename it as the Twelfth Doctor specials, as has been done in the past with multiple specials in a row. (2009 AND 2013) Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The only episode this year will be the Christmas special, which will only be a few months before Series 10. You can't group 2 specials that are a whole year apart with no others in between. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

And why can we "not" do this? Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be original research? BlueBlue11 (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

How so? By listing specials as specials? Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The 2008-10 specials and the 2013 specials are official designations whereas grouping the 2015 and 2016 Christmas specials has no grounding whatsoever. BlueBlue11 (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

That is because they have separate articles. This would be a mere grouping of two specials in the same table. No original research necessary. If this is original research, then placing Christmas Specials in with other series based on what editors personally think of themselves is too. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not original research when Husbands of River Song for example is included in the complete Series 9 boxset. BlueBlue11 (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are we worrying about this now? We know hardly anything about the 2016 Christmas special other than it will happen, the Doctor will be the Twelfth Doctor and the executive producer will be Steven Moffat. My point is, we shouldn't write anything more about the special until we have more infomation, which will probably be in a while. However, when we do have the infomation, we could group them in '2015-2016 specials' page, it is not original research. Or maybe, if consensus is reached, put 'The Husbands of River Song' on the page Doctor Who (series 9), and make no new pages.Theoosmond (talk)

It is, however, BlueBlue11, original research to base listings off of varying box sets. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not original research to use boxsets. The episodes on boxsets are chosen by the BBC, and therefore can be used as as sources.Theoosmond (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Based upon what guideline or policy? Please link where it states that boxsets are used for listings. Failure to do so is proof of your own personal preference, and from there, original research. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I don't understand what you mean. Sorry. However, it is the BBC who decide which episodes go into which series, so what they say is correct.Theoosmond (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No need to ping me, I am watching this talk page and related article. Putting episodes together on a round disc does not determine whether the episodes are in the same series, given that Christmas Specials aren't even part of any series. And yes, they also agreed that Series 7 was to be split into two parts, but certain editors had issues with that. And the BBC are not here to put their opinion across. The BBC also hire showrunners to decide this, but editors also argue their words. Just can't win here. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to hold a grudge against me for the issue on 'Doctor Who (series 7), I was being stupid and ashamed for what I did (and apoligised to you on your talk page). Anyway, I can't give you a link, but I am pretty sure that the reason why on Wikipedia Christmas specials are on the page of the series that follows them is because 'The Christmas Invasion' was on the series 2 boxset, because I'm sure I remember seeing something about that on a talk page somewhere, but I can't remember where. I will try to find the page that says that on it.Theoosmond (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather Christmas specials not be counted in a series at all but that seems to be against Wikipedia's guidelines or something. Which is ridiculous. BlueBlue11 (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we should consider that most people were so far in agreement of using the complete series boxsets previous to this news and even if not all people agree. If most agree about one way of doing things, that should be seen as consensus and the people who disagree, if their numbers are in the minority will have to go with the majority. So we should now do another one of the options where you agree or disagree that should now say both: "Using the complete season boxsets is a valid source" and "'The Husbands of River Song' and the 2016 Christmas special should be grouped under '2015-2016 Specials'" Lotrjw (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@BlueBlue11 I think the reason that Christmas specials got linked to series was due to a discussion about 2 years ago, as previous to that they were all separate (see my section near the base of this page where I tried to get that decision reversed). Lotrjw (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

With the 2008–10 specials and the 2013 specials, it was an official designation, there was only 1-3 months between them and there was a connection (a story arc/running plot). Grouping "The Husbands of River Song" and the 2016 Christmas special would be ridiculous as they are a year apart, and original research, as it is not an official designation. We can't just group specials because there are no regular episodes between them. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Using the complete season boxsets is a valid source to use for Christmas specials

• Agree Lotrjw (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree 5.67.73.111 (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree why is this being voted on again 2.26.206.85 (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• comment 2.26.206.85 Ask AlexTheWhovian who is the only one who seems to be against the boxset use and so is advocating having a 2015-2016 specials section. I put this bit down here again so we can all choose between what was starting to become a consensus and AlexTheWhovian's idea. I am trying to be fair to AlexTheWhovian by having his idea voted on. I hope that people will be in favour of the boxsets idea which seems to be the case. Lotrjw (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Haven't we had a vote on this?Theoosmond (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment @Theoosmond yes we have but this is so there is a clear distinction between the to current proposed ideas for the 2015 and 2016 Christmas specials due to this new idea being suggested. Lotrjw (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree - still not convinced about the whole specials being introductory to the following series is sourceable.  The Windler talk  12:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree BlueBlue11 (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree - Changed my mind, seeing that using boxsets now seem, before they are even being used, to causing problems. It's not original research to say that this and last years' Christmas Specials are grouped.Theoosmond (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree Etron81 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree - Boxsets are an official source, we can't dismiss them based on speculation of why Christmas specials are put in particular boxsets. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

'The Husbands of River Song' and the 2016 Christmas special should be grouped under '2015-2016 Specials'

• Disagree Lotrjw (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree 5.67.73.111 (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree the husbands of river song is to detached from the 2016 Christmas special as this is the 1st place I've see the idea that they are linked just because there's two specials in a row dose not aturmacly link them you can't have blanket rules on where specials go beyond wich sources are used to make the disision 2.26.206.85 (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree - They should be linked as this, as it is organised. The plot of The Next Doctor was detatched from the rest of the 2008-10 specials, and the 2013 specials were quite separate, which seems to flaw any arguements saying that the specials have to be linked to be on the same wiki page. And saying this year's Christmas special isn't linked to last year's Christmas special is entirely original research, we don't know anything about this year's Christmas special.Theoosmond (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment @Theoosmond the 2008 Christmas special was not on the series 4 boxset and it was included in the 2008-2010 specials boxset, proving that the BBC look at these situations differently. You are entitled to your opinion though. 21:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Lotrjw:I know the 2008 Christmas Special was part of the 2008-10 specials. My point was that the plot of the Next Doctor had no relevance to the other specials.

• @Theoosmond: Well I guess if we followed that, then "The Next Doctor" would have to be placed on series 4, "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" would be placed on series 6, both "The Day of the Doctor" and "The Time of the Doctor" would be included on series 7 (There are some clear links story wise!) and "Last Christmas" would end up with series 8 for sure. Now while I wouldnt object to this idea, many people wouldnt agree as there is no official source that states this, boxsets is the only public official source we have for giving specials a link to anything and we have at least had many people agree to this. Lotrjw (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree. Though, just the title of "Specials (2015–16)" would do. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree. For the same reason that I think Complete Series boxsets is a valid source as separating the seasons, I therefore disagree (each of the series pages uses the image of complete boxset in infobox).  The Windler talk  12:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I only disagree with this when compared to the first question. BlueBlue11 (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree Etron81 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree - 90.203.199.169 (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Expanding on my point only fools and horses lists Christmas specials sepretly when there was no series in between 2.26.206.85 (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lotrjw: Do you know where that dicussion about why the Christmas specials are in the pages about the next series is?Theoosmond (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Theoosmond sorry I dont know where that discussion is, I assume its archived somewhere. Lotrjw (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any one major discussion of when and why we started this, but here are some discussions I've found:

• Talk:Doctor Who (series 4)#Christmas Special part of series?
• Talk:List of Doctor Who serials/Archive 12#What's going on with Christmas Specials?
• Talk:List of Doctor Who serials/Archive 3#2006 Christmas Special
• Talk:List of Doctor Who serials/Archive 2#The Christmas Invasion

Etron81 (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that ,Etron81 - Theoosmond (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I will ping you, since this message is directed at you. Out of the links provided by Etron81, the second and the fourth have evidence of the series the Christmas specials are in being related to which boxsets are in. However, I thought I'ld tell you, that the reason for the which series Christmas specials are put into on Wikipedia may be because the early Christmas specials were produced with the following series, which you may have already known, and production dates may be a more reliable thing to go on.Theoosmond (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lotrjw:Boxsets are not a source. However, production dates and plot lines can also be used as sources, so you can't say boxsets are the only source, even if they were sources, there are other sources out there.Theoosmond (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we have a vote on which Christmas specials would go into which series pages, rather than worrying if boxsets are reliable sources, so have a vote on if 'The Christmas Invasion' would go into series 1 or 2, 'The Runaway Bride' in series 2 or 3 etc. Or would that be original research?Theoosmond (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If we had a vote on every Special separately we would likely find that most people would want most of them as they are now with mainly "The Next Doctor", "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe", "Last Christmas" and "The Husbands of River Song" being the only real disputes. I guess we could do one long table with sub headings when a special or series (part series in the case of series 7) begin. The other little notes would have to be placed in a text box to the side of the table at the point that series is in the table. This would only be practical for the revived series as there is a distinct start point with 'Rose' and series 1. Lotrjw (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

the problem with using storylines and production schedules is that they don’t always Mache a brocast season in tv production for example law and order UK normally made 13 episodes in one run but when they where brocast they were broken in two 2 seasons even the last season of shera Jan adventures was filmed at the same time as season 4 for beget reasons what’s more there are many ensamples of tv shows ending their season on a cliff-hanger and in the usa even with part 1 of a 2 part story the best way to make a determination of what to do with the specials is to list them as they are presented to the public and promoted by the BBC which should include the season dvd box sets and what the bbc advertise as the 2008 to 2010 and 2013 specials as this is how the bbc presents the episodes to the public 2.26.206.85 (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

But that's never happened with the new series of Doctor Who.Theoosmond (talk) 20:29, 27

January 2016 (UTC)

@Lotrjw:First of all, the specials only have to go with a series and not with a part of series, i.e The Snowmen doesn't have to go with part 1 or 2 of Series 7. And as for a vote, I was thinking of using numbers to determine which series a special goes in eg.

Last Christmas

• 8 - Example 1 (wishing that 'Last Christmas' goes in series 8)

And if they believe a Christmas special goes in a set of specials, they would say

The Next Doctor

• 2008 - 2010 specials - Example 2

or so, so there would be subheadings for each special. Also, if we have a vote, only do it on the four you mentioned, that would be the best idea.Theoosmond (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

But it does not make sense to have different rules for defining as series for revived doctor who than other TV shows Evan the classic series as there where cases in the 60s of story’s being held bake to lunched the next series like the dalek invasion of earth going by how the bbc promotes and sells the specials is the best option as this will avoid unnecessary confusion in readers coming here and seeing something deferent than what the bbc has included on the official season box set in fact even contpeary advertisements can be roung as season 14 part 2 as a new season on original brocast but is now regarded by everybody as just season 14 going by how the bbc insists to list them simply is the best option2.26.206.85 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

But the problem we're dealing only applies to the revived series and, in the revived series, the episodes have always been filmed with the episodes of the same series, and not other series. And the BBC doesn't state which series a Christmas special goes into, so a vote is the best idea. Theoosmond (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

So, should we do a vote? Theoosmond (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that Wikipedia uses consensus, not voting. Also, the boxsets appear to be inconsistent in this regard (info from List of Doctor Who home video releases):

• "The Christmas Invasion": Series 1 2
• "The Runaway Bride": Series 2 3
• "Voyage of the Damned": Series 4
• "A Christmas Carol": Separate
• "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe": Separate
• "Last Christmas": Separate
• "The Husbands of River Song": Series 9

If there is no better source for deciding this, I'd prefer listing the specials separately, as it was done earlier but reverted, I guess because there wasn't enough consensus. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

it's true that Christmas specials are a new seires fonominon but it dos not make sense to me to use the push toon schedule for the new show and not the classic show I also feal that how speaks are listed can very thrue the run of the sirise as the relationship between them and the regular episodes is constantly evolving with this being the first year that I let Christmas specials will be made whil the snowmen was in the midial of the season and every other one brocast between a season final and a season opener it is for that reason that I feal going by how the bbc dis ribs them is the best option in the long run 213.205.252.124 (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H:I know about the consensus, not voting thing, but voting can still be used as a path to consensus.Theoosmond (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC) And also, consensus has not been achieved on using boxsets as sources. Theoosmond (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just done some research, A Christmas Carol and the Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe and Last Christmas were on the boxsets of the next series, and Nyuszika7 got it wrong when he/she said the Christmas Invasion was with series 1 and the Runaway Bride was with series 2.Theoosmond (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Theoosmond: Sorry, that was a typo. Fixed. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I've started a poll over which series or set of specials 'The Next Doctor', 'The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe', 'Last Christmas' and 'The Husbands of River Song' should go on, to see what editors opinions are. It's these ones only since these seem like the only ones that may be disputed. If you think other Christmas specials need to be included in this poll, put them in. Theoosmond (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Which series page should 'The Next Doctor' go on?

• 2008-10 - Theoosmond (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 2008-10 -2.26.206.85 (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 2008-10 As my preference is to use boxsets now. Lotrjw (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 2008-10 BlueBlue11 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 2008-10 - 5.67.73.111 (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• 2008-10 Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Which series page should 'The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe' go on?

• 7 - Theoosmond (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 7 2.26.206.85 (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 7 As my preference is to use boxsets now. Lotrjw (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 6 BlueBlue11 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 7 - 5.67.73.111 (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Neither: Seperate table. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• 7 - 90.203.199.169 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Which series page should 'Last Christmas' go on?

• 8 - Theoosmond (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 9 -2.26.206.85 (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 8 BlueBlue11 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 9 - Grouping it with Series 8 is unsourced. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Neither: Seperate table. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• 9 - 90.203.199.169 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Which series page should 'The Husbands of River Song' go on?

• 9 - Theoosmond (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 9 -2.26.206.85 (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 9 Lotrjw (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 9 BlueBlue11 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• 9 - 5.67.73.111 (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Neither: Seperate table. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• 9 - 90.203.199.169 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there now consensus to use box sets as a valid source as the two votes are currently at 1st vote 7 for 1 against and 1 coment and the second vote is at 6 for 2 against and 3 comments or are thes superseded by the current vote2.26.206.85 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus yet, Wikipedia does not gain consensus through voting, any votes are for seeing what peoples opinions are so consensus can be achieved. Theoosmond (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just found on Doctor Who (series 8) that the production team confirmed there would be 13 episodes, so it seems the production team count Last Christmas as being in series 8. Theoosmond (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Source? Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources on Doctor Who (series 8). If you read between the lines, it implies Last Christmas is part of series 8.Theoosmond (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian I'm wondering why on the poll, you said neither for The Husbands of River Song. I thought you wanted a '2015-2016 specials page'.Theoosmond (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Theoosmond: "If you read between the lines" sounds like WP:SYNTH. The sources only say they would produce 13 episodes in 2014, not for series 8. – nyuszika7h (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H:Historians, who use many sources, often infer information from sources that wasn't directly stated, i.e. reading between the lines, just saying. Theoosmond (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You are not a historian. Follow WP guidelines - no OR or SYNTH. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I was just saying! Theoosmond (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Convenience (arbitrary) break 2

Just put a brake and just a question on one of the issues that seems to have been forgotten that is the question of whether the DVDs are a valid source wich I believe they are this whood put both last Christmas and the husbands of river song in series 92.26.206.85 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I will be the first to agree on using the DVD/Bluray complete series boxsets as valid sources, I hope this can be built to a consensus. I presume that consensus is a majority not a unanimous? Lotrjw (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The main discussion is about which series Christmas specials go into, not if boxsets are reliable sources. You can start a separate discussion about boxsets if you want.Theoosmond (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lotrjw: You're right consensus is not unaminous, but consensus is not achieved by voting, votes are for opinions only, you have to discuss to achieve consensus.Theoosmond (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok the boxsetrs issue needs redefining, lets say the complete series boxsets are a valid source for where to list Christmas Specials, that covers it without having to place it in its own category! Re voting I know its not consensus in itself, but its a valid part of the discussion towards consensus. Im glad it doesnt have to be unanimous. Lotrjw (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I have just been thinking and looking at the series 9 page, that once consensus is finally reached, it will have repercussions for the series pages as they will then need to be edited to reflect what is done here! Lotrjw (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that they should be used as sources. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter:, @MarnetteD: and @GraemeLeggett: I was wondering what your opinions are on using boxsets as reliable sources for Doctor Who. Theoosmond (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

All these groupings are arbitrary. The list could be split by year - or every 17 episodes - or not split at all (after all this is meant to be a "list") - everything would still be factual. These groupings are always going to be a matter of opinion - which seems to be why this is so divisive. Some people are placing the importance of a "season" over the "boxset release" and vice versa. Personally I believe the "season" articles and the list are better served by changing the focus to be on the boxset release - and in doing so would still be completely factual but remain structurally simpler - but that is probably because I believe the boxset is intended as the body of work to be consider as a whole (why it is called "Complete Season X"). Dresken (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of box sets being of themselves the single defining definition of what constitutes a complete season. A release of episodes together is made for commercial purposes and might be a compromise to maximize income over the creators' "vision", or a result of other external pressures. And how to interpret intermediate releases - hypothetical example a 9 episode series is released as Season X Pt1, pt2, pt3 and then a single special follows and is DVD-ed separately. Then a month later "Complete season X" is released with all 9 plus special. Thinking further I would look for definition of the season in the set notes, not just what is listed on outside of box. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In years to come though people wont look at how they ended up being broadcast or even that the production team sort to associate a special with one series or another, they will look back and see the complete series boxsets as the defining way that a special is associated with series. Also the pt 1 ect intermediate boxsets are just done so episodes can be released earlier, so they cant be seen as definitive from that point of view. If we dont use boxsets its just going to be the opinions of a handful of us editors that decide, I would rather use something concrete like boxsets, that once set in place, can be an ongoing guideline for many years to come! Lotrjw (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lotrjw: What you said about people not looking at how the episodes were broadcast in the future is original research, you have nothing to back up your claim. Theoosmond (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough its an assumption, but a likely one. The better point is that there is not much official information beyond boxsets, so anything else actually decided on here would be the opinions of a few editors that made a consensus agreement, what would that look like to anyone else and would they trust it? Lotrjw (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

well there is the fact that the face of eveal was advertised as the start of a new season but is now regarded as the start of the 2nd part of season 14 as well astute fact that I serieaey dout that Any body at the time whoud have flamed the five doctors as part of season 20 and to that the fact that the box sets are caked complete series x and not series x plus speasal

Looks like I was wrong, the complete series boxsets are different. "A Christmas Carol" is included on the series 6 boxset, "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" on the series 7 boxset, and "Last Christmas" and "The Husbands of River Song" are both included on the series 9 boxset. I think that makes perfect sense, also considering the different schedule for series 10. "The Husbands of River Song" seems to be the only special not listed according to the boxsets, and I don't think we should group the 2015 and 2016 specials together, unless maybe there is a clear link between them, but we can't know that for sure until the 2016 special airs, which is pretty far away.

I might have missed it, but I have yet to hear any real arguments from people against using the boxsets apart from "it's just marketing", but no actual arguments against grouping the specials this way. Until now, specials have been grouped in the series following them, and it made sense. The release schedule for series 10 is different, so it makes sense to include "The Husbands of River Song" in series 9, and I don't believe it's just marketing, it also makes sense story-wise, unless I'm missing something. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to point out that most people kind of agreed that this issue with specials is only a matter for the revived series (from 2005 onwards), as the classics are kind of set in stone in a sense. Yes the revived series should be too, but as there has been so many specials and no coercive system that works so far, except tagging Christmas specials onto the next series on, that doesnt always work!, we need a proper system in place. Lotrjw (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the specials are the only fixed brocast of the year and the schedule for the rest of the series has changed like the years with no series just specials and this year with just a Christmas specials and Evan series 7 being split with a Christmas special in the middle the best plan is just to agree wher to look to determine wher they should go as no fixed rules will work given thes changers that is why I support using the DVDs as a way to Dixie where to put them2.26.206.85 (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

We could always just separate the Christmas specials from the series' tables completely if we can't gain consensus.Theoosmond (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha. If only. That's what we actually ended up doing after a consensus was gained for it, then as soon as the specials were separated, the consensus broke down and the page was restored. That won't work. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Remember how this list used to look. Let's not go back there: [6] Dresken (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian:Well, you could always give gaining consensus another shot. I mean, there isn't really any source for having most of them associated with series.Theoosmond (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Separating Christmas specials

Since consensus will be hard to reach on which Christmas specials go into which series, I will re-open a dicussion on this page about separating the Christmas specials from the series pages.Theoosmond (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Two-bits of comment...I think that might be best. We can append something like the Series X Box Set also contained Y specials...or some-such. DonQuixote (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm opposed to separating the Christmas specials as I support using the DVDs as a Gide and I don't think it acuretley reflects how the specials are sold to the public and advertised also looking through the comments only Alex the whovian was opposed to listing husbands of river song in series 9 wich is the main issue with this page 2.26.206.85 (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

While I dont mind this idea, had we really reached a point that consensus couldnt be reached on complete series boxsets? from the voting there seemed to be a majority leaning towards that, it just seems that we havent had enough people on here for an actual consensus on it.

In light of this I propose a vote between these two methods to gauge which people like best of the two, yes there will be some that dont like either and thats fine too, we just need some discussion too for consensus, so please comment with your vote. Lotrjw (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Which method for listing Christmas specials would you prefer Complete Series Boxsets or making them separate?

• Complete Series Boxsets - I prefer this as they will be more tidy, I dont mind the idea of making them separate, but I dont agree with anything else as sources for other methods are unreliable or non-existent and I especially dont like the status quo of just tagging them to the following series as that cant always work. Lotrjw (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Separate Why is this discussion going in circles? Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Separate No sources state what series Doctor Who Christmas specials go into. Theoosmond (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• Complete Series Boxsets - 2.26.206.85 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• Complete Series Boxsets - I strongly disagree with listing them separately, it's makes the page a mess, and we need a rule that works for all specials, listing separately doesn't work for various specials, "The Christmas Invasion" as it is part of Series 2's arc, same goes for "The Runaway Bride", "The Next Doctor" and "The End of Time" as they are grouped, and "The Snowmen" as it aired in the middle of Series 7 and furthered the arc, so basically listing them separately only works for 5 out 11 specials, which is less than half. Using boxsets is the only system that works for all specials. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• Complete Series Boxsets - While sources during production/transmission may vary, the box sets are, in the end, how the BBC chooses to groups the episodes/specials into Series. Etron81 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• Complete Series Boxsets are what I'm leaning towards, but I'm not entirely against splitting them, I just don't want the specials to be arbitrarily put in a different series (not the one whose boxset they are in). Fortunately it seems like that's not even a choice now. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• Complete Series Boxsets Groupings are arbitrary anyway, you can select any grouping and the facts remain true. However this way it is based on a source - and the list is kept more tidy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dresken (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• Complete Series Boxsets - 90.203.199.169 (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not propose doing anything to 'The Next Doctor', 'The End of Time', 'The Snowmen' or 'The Time of the Doctor', story arcs are not sources to show what series episodes go into, otherwise you could argue 'Bad Wolf' was in series 2, 'Love and Monsters' was in series 3 and 'The Last of the Time Lords' was in series 4, which is utter drivel and I don't think having extra tables does not make it messy, look at this revision. Also, complete series boxsets are not sources, how can you tell if the BBC just puts the Christmas special in the next unreleased boxset or not? Theoosmond (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If the majority agree on one idea though Theoosmond then we will have consensus, we shouldnt all have to agree, just a threshold of people agreeing. Lotrjw (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It may be of interest that the Season Poll in DWM 495 includes "The Husbands of River Song", but not "Last Christmas" (I'm not sure what previous season polls have done with the specials) Etron81 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason for that is that the Season Survey takes all the episodes the year, not because of how specials are grouped. 5.67.73.111 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

However, Lotrjw consensus is about discussing, not just agreeing. And it is an unsourced claim that the boxsets are how the BBC chooses to group series. Theoosmond (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's still the most official source we can hope to have for grouping Christmas Specials though and most people agree with that. Lotrjw (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

But is it a source? We don't know how the BBC decides which episodes go in which boxset. Theoosmond (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The point is the BBC decided what goes on the boxset and they are the ones who make the programme. So I don't see it matters how the BBC decidw what, as it's produced by them and so are the boxsets! Lotrjw (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You I don't think you're seeing there are many potential posibilities to how the BBC decides which Christmas specials go in which boxset, and for example, they may simply put the Christmas special in the next available Boxset, and after a look at the the dates of release of the Boxsets, that would make sense. However, with this possibility, the BBC may still not think the Christmas specials go into any series. You may be right that they choose which Christmas specials go into which series, and think that 'The Christmas Invasion' is in series 2, 'The Runaway Bride' is in series 3. But my point is we do not know if the BBC thinks Christmas specials should be part of particular series. I will also say that the BBC episode list suggests that they don't make Christmas specials go with particular series. Theoosmond (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

there's a problem with the bbc episode list comperd with the one on Wikipedia as the bbc one list some of the minsodes as specials wich Wikipedia dos not as well as the fact that it lists the omibus of the season 9 episodes megisens aprentis and the witches familiar as a episde separately and Evan under its own season call season 9 omibus this also applies to the classic series with the omibus of the demons listed as the last episode for that season after the normal version of the episode 2.26.206.85 (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I was saying there is no evidence that the BBC puts Christmas specials with certain series. Theoosmond (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Well if thats the case we could use boxsets and actually have a note at the top of the page to say something like 'The BBC dont officially associate Christmas specials with any particular series, but they are listed with the series that they are included with, within the complete series boxsets.' or something like that. Remember its still something done by the BBC even if they dont consider anything particular. It just makes the whole thing much more tidy and most people seem to agree. Lotrjw (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a list - you could group them alphabetically, by duration, by number of actors - it would remain correct. The choice is arbitrary and will always be a matter of opinion - people arguing for what is and isn't a source are actually missing the point. Grouping by Boxset make as much sense as anything else - however has the advantage keeping the list clean. Stop referring to the articles as the season - start referring to them as the boxset - then defining what is and isn't the season doesn't conflict, the world remains true, and you haven't messed up a perfectly good list. The only other option I could support is getting rid of seasons and grouping by year. Dresken (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Why should this list be different from the majority of the other lists that group by season? DonQuixote (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You can't refer to them by boxset, as boxsets are not necessarily how the BBC chooses to group series. All Wikipedia group episodes by season, so Doctor Who shouldn't be any different. It isn't a big deal if the Christmas specials are separated form the series, since there is no good arguement for putting Christmas specials with particular series, and it doesn't look 'messy', there are just a few extra tables, that's all. Theoosmond (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a good argument for boxsets, which is that it is an official and a reliable source. Consensus for listing them separately will never be reached as it failed TWICE, it is clear that listing them separately doesn't work and therefore it is not an option. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Boxsets are not sources until we know how the episodes in them are chosen, the Christmas special in boxsets may just be put into the next boxset available, which from some research of the release dates makes sense. And you can't say because consensus has failed many times, it won't happen, you never know what will happen in the future.Theoosmond (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Theoosmond: Intent vs reality. If Telsla intended to make a electric airplane but made an electric helicopter instead what would we say they made. Intent does not need to affect a reality. Doctor Who Boxsets are a real, factual objects which we are able to unambiguously state facts about. @DonQuixote: Maybe it makes more sense for this page to be a part of the minority that you are talking about. After all a page should suit its own purpose and not others. Right? Dresken (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dresken:Doctor Who is no different in many respects from other TV programs, and all programs should be grouped by series, and I have never seen any other program like it, so if you want to put your idea through, you have to talk to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. And I have said this several times, we don't know how Christmas specials are chosen to go into which boxsets, and therefore it is a ridiculous idea to use them as sources, and I have no idea what you are going on about Telsla. Theoosmond (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesnt matter how they decide the fact is the BBC do decide so yes we can use them! Lotrjw (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec)@Dresken:Maybe, but unless you answer "why", it's not much of an argument and it won't convince anyone. DonQuixote (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: This whole thread already provides many "why"s and "whynot"s about the topic - and I presumed everyone here can read. So your question came across as wanting clarification for why this article is allowed to be different to others - so I answered the "why" I thought you were asking. Thank you for being rude about it. Dresken (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I bruised your ego, but I was responding to your "This is a list - you could group them alphabetically, by duration, by number of actors - it would remain correct. The choice is arbitrary and will always be a matter of opinion...." So, again, why should this list be different from all the other lists that list by season? And why does it "makes more sense for this page to be a part of the minority"? DonQuixote (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lotrjw:It does matter how the BBC decides how to group boxsets, because some potential reasons for these decisions may mean that the BBC chooses not to group Christmas specials with certain series, like the one I've mentioned several times, that they may just put the Christmas specials on the next available boxset. I am so sick of saying this over and over again! Boxsets aren't sources until we know how the episodes are chosen. Theoosmond (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Im also getting tired of saying that it doesnt and as such we are obviously never going to agree! So I dont know what that would mean for consensus? Lotrjw (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been going in circles for some time now - maybe it's time to call in comment from uninvolved editors - maybe from Wikipedia:WikiProject Television? Etron81 (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. Please do. I'm getting sick of this discussion and it going nowhere. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also sick of this discussion going round in circles. Theoosmond (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thats something I can agree with wholeheartedly! Lotrjw (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's consensus on that at least! I've created the RFC here and put a notice on the WikiProject Television talk page. Etron81 (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

So I guess we just wait until these other editors come and help us gain a consensus one way or another? Lotrjw (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Theoosmond: Please tone down the emphasis, see WP:SHOUT. Anyway, you keep complaining that the organization of specials on boxsets is not necessarily a reliable source, which could be a valid concern, but it makes sense to me. You have yet to give any example where it does not make sense to put them where they were put on the boxset. Until series 9, specials go to the next series boxset. This obviously makes sense for "A Christmas Carol", less obvious for the rest but I don't see a problem. The 2015 special being put in series 9, if any, makes sense given that it was announced that series 10 will start with the 2016 Christmas special. I would not group them together as it is different from the 2008–10 specials where there were no new series for multiple years, and the 2013 specials were just one month apart. Series 10 is just changing the normal schedule. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H:Yeah, the emphasis was just be feeling my points weren't getting noticed, and I was getting frustrated. Anyway, your point about why Christmas specials may be put on certain boxsets is possible, but I think it would not be the best idea to use boxsets as sources without knowing how they are put together. You do realise you could ask the BBC how the boxsets are put together, or someone invloved with Doctor Who. Theoosmond (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

the production team are in charge of the box sets as stated in the article on Doctor who DVDs in dwm 488 where it's stated that the restoration team handled the classic series and the new series was handeld by the production team 2.26.206.85 (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Theoosmond: I'm sorry you are frustrated, your point has been noticed, however some of us are disagreeing with it. The how/why behind the boxsets I don't see as important - where as you do. I think: the boxsets exist - they were created by the BBC - therefore I consider them a valid object from a valid source that we can state truths about. I believe we can state that "according to the boxsets the episodes have been grouped this way". As it is like I would not question the how/why the BBC decided the order of airing episodes - they were aired in that order - therefore it is a valid order to source. Dresken (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dresken:Well, you can think that, but just remember what I said, I'll remember what you said for the duration of this discussion. And @2.26.206.85:, I didn't ever question who puts the boxsets together, and I can't see any point to your comment, as it makes no difference to anything. Theoosmond (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason provided for why we shouldn't use boxsets is original research as it is just speculation on why specials are put in certain boxsets. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk) I like your thinking saying that to suggest boxsets arent valid is original research! That makes them very valid! Lotrjw (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it's original research to use boxsets until we know how they are put together. If you find out and post the reason, it could make them valid, depending on the reason. So if you want to boxsets to used so much, why don't you contact the Doctor Who production team and ask them how boxsets are put together, and show us Wikipedians how they are put together and give us prove that is what they said. It may end this dicussion far more quickly.Theoosmond (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)And I've said nothing certain, but my point is legitimate in the sense we need more info about boxsets if you want to use them as sources.Theoosmond (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, specials are probably put in the next available boxset. After looking carefully at both sides of the argument, I have come the decision that listing specials with any series is unsourced, and the only sourced way of listing them is listing them separately, excluding grouped specials and "The Snowmen". 90.203.199.169 (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

As there are two strong sides - both sides should probably be looking for a compromise. I would propose to change the headings (where required) to Series X and Specials. I am mainly concerned about untidiness of a list where I don't believe grouping needs to be based wholly on splitting a series from specials. I don't mind the current layout where the specials have been indicated within the same table (as in Series 6 and Series 7) - but I am definitely against splitting the tables entirely. Dresken (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Years already included and makes sense, so I should have suggested Series X and Specials (Year/s) Dresken (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

No, you can't list episodes like that, it is misleading and confusing, episodes have to be listed by series and specials. Anyway, that isn't a compromise, that is the users who are for boxsets getting what they want. Boxsets are not a reliable source as specials are most likely just put in the next available boxset. Listing specials separately is the only sourced way of listing them. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not really original research, as by crossing out the episode number we are not making a stronger statement than the boxsets about the specials being linked to the series. Since nobody has come up with any better official source, that's pretty much the only thing we have, even if it's not certain whether all specials are meant to be linked to those series. We can even mention that in the article. The alternative of splitting the specials is a bit strange, just because the series are transcluded from their own pages but the specials are listed directly here, and that can be confusing to editors. In terms of looks I don't really mind, though grouping them with the series is more compact. Maybe someone could really ask the BBC about this, but the reply would need to be public since we can't really verify an email. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It is a ridiculous proposal. We can't list the episodes by year, it is misleading/confusing, it is original research, it doesn't make sense, and it goes against every other List of X episodes/serials, which all use series and specials, we can't have our own system, episodes are listed by series and specials, listing them by year is not an option. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I assume you're replying to the other person, as I was not suggesting "listing them by years". Listing based on boxsets would be the same as currently, except "The Husbands of River Song" would go at the end of series 9. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought you were in support of the proposal, but it seems you are not. But boxsets can't be used, specials are probably just put in the next available boxset. Specials don't belong with any series. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Saying that the page will look 'messy' is actually a pretty poor arguement, we should be more interested with the content of pages and making sure there's no OR, not the presentation. Theoosmond (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC) Also, we have to keep in line with other TV programmes, which list episodes by series/seasons, never years.Theoosmond (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Boxsets arent original research they are an official source from the BBC themselves! Lotrjw (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion. Circles and circles and circles. Have we got anywhere yet? Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Boxsets can't be used as we don't know how the BBC decides which specials go in which boxsets, but it is most likely that they are just put in the next available boxset. Listing the specials separately is the only sourced way of listing them. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Boxsets are original research, we need to know how they are put together before they are used as sources, since we don't know if the BBC puts specials with series. Why don't you find out how boxsets are put together, because I am sick of hearing this over and over again and I don't think you take note of anything I say. Can't we keep this discussion moving along and agree on something? Theoosmond (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The best reaction to someone questioning the reliability of a source (box sets) isn't to keep parroting that they're reliable. You need to show (verify) that they're reliable by citing other sources etc. First, you need to show that it is a source (as per citable sources) rather than a product (as per The Cyberman Box Set or the Dalek Box Set, etc). DonQuixote (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I was wondering what it is you don't like about boxsets, because I think your reason may help sort this discussion out faster. Theoosmond (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting yet another vote over whether we can be certain the BBC groups specials with series because of boxsets, to see if any progress has been made over consensus.Theoosmond (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you think boxsets are proof that the BBC purposely groups Christmas specials with particular series, i.e genuinely believing 'The Christmas Invasion' is part of series 2, 'The Runaway Bride' is part of series 3 etc.?

• No Theoosmond (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• YesLotrjw (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Yes The Boxsets are released by the BBC, therefore are indeed a grouping provided by the BBC, therefore (for better or worse) any episodes on that boxset have been grouped by the BBC. QED Dresken (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Yes 90.203.199.169 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well separate them if you wish I just don't see why boxsets, which are created by the BBC, which also make the programme in question, can't be seen as a valid source. I don't accept the current argument against them. Lotrjw (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I will separate Christmas specials from the series unless anyone complains about it in 24 hours, so be quick. Theoosmond (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Theoosmond: I would recommend against that edit while this discussion is ongoing. There is definitely no consensus for a change one way or the other at this stage. We are definitely in the discussion stage where the recommended behaviour is to leave the article as is. For example, I would like to move The Husbands of River Song but I wont because the topic is being discussed - even if I made that change I am sure that someone would revert it at the moment because consensus has not been reached. I don't know if it can be reached if we all don't start looking for middle ground. Dresken (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that this discussion has gone on too long, so I'm trying to speed up it's progress, so we can finish it quickly, so, if we had consensus, I could make the change and end the discussion quickly. By the way, the 'ping', 're' templates etc. must be correct on the first go, otherwise they don't alert the user. Theoosmond (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

If the BBC did group specials with series, wouldn't they show this on their episode guide?Theoosmond (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does what you want to do take priority over others here when the discussion has gone on too long? Would you be fine if I decided this discussion has gone on too long and that it meant I should make the changes I believed should be made? Also I see you have gone back and changed your question now. I no longer see the question as even addressing the issue. To repeat what I am saying: the grouping on this page does not have to be based on Series - other options for grouping are valid - including grouping by Boxset, or Year, or one table for each doctor. Dresken (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The question I changed it to was what I meant orignally, so in effect it's the same question. Boxsets are products not sources unless you can prove otherwise, and there is a long running consensus that TV episodes are grouped by series, and nothing else.Theoosmond (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the latter section of the above. The standard practice is and always has been to group episodes by season. Other methods such as by year or one table for each Doctor would simply not do, especially the latter. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, listing them separately is original research. Boxsets are an official source, we can't dismiss them based on speculation of why Christmas specials are put in particular boxsets. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No, you have to know how sources work before they can be used as sources, for example, IMDb has been claimed by some editors as a reliable source, but do you know why it is not a reliable source, 90.203.199.169? The answer is that IMDb is a edited by members of the public (like Wikipedia). I hope you now realise how you must know how sources work before they are used as sources. And how is it original research to list Christmas specials separately? Theoosmond (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if it is currently a standard - standards can change. Although other than stating it is done this way - nobody has shown there is an actual standard/policy for this - and even if there is we can still discuss changing it. Indeed the MOS:TV explicitly states the episode listing structure is left to some interpretation - often says how the specific implementation are "up to the editors" - it even states using a table for this is only a recommendation ("ideally" a strong one, but still a recommendation). One main point it makes is choosing appropriate titles for sections, which I have previously recommended more appropriate titles as a compromise to this conflict. I also hope that other methods such as by year or one table for each Doctor are not used - however the point I am trying to make is that groupings don't change the facts - it only affect the presentation - and there is no source as far as anyone has demonstrated for how the layout is required to be. I maintain any grouping is a matter of opinion/style - so arguing about what is the better source is ultimately missing the actual issue of what the boxset side are challenging: which is along the lines of "Where is the source stating only a Series can be used for grouping episode lists?" Dresken (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not happening, episode lists have to be by series and specials, otherwise they are factually incorrect. 90.203.199.169 (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Theoosmond: IMDb should not be used for information about movies and tv shows as it is a tertiary source on that subject. Boxsets and Series episode lists from the BBC would both be a primary source of grouping and order of episodes. There are different policies for each type of source. IMDb cannot be used as there are secondary and primary sources that provide the same information and therefore should be preferred. Nothing to do with "how" on all counts. see WP:PSTS Dresken (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

But you have proven that you have to know what kind of source a source is before it is used, i.e IMDb is cannot be used a source as it is known to be a tertiary source, not a primary or secondary, proving you need to know how a source works (in the case of IMDb, it is edited by the public, so it's a type of tertiary source) so you have not foiled my point. Also, you cannot list specials under series 2 or 3 or whatever, as they are not definitely part of those series. By the way, if you want me to accept the use of boxsets, ask the BBC how they are put together.Theoosmond (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That is misinterpretation of the policy and also what I said. You are inventing requirements out of thin air - for example WP:USEPRIMARY at no point does it suggest getting in touch with the producer of a primary source to confirm it is a primary source. If you want us to accept that currently boxset could not be used for grouping a list of episodes, show us a policy here that states as such (as I have looked and can't find one). Dresken (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not making up requirements, I am saying we don't know if boxsets are sources of any kind, and that would be one way to prove if it's a source or not, because what your're not accepting is that we don't know if boxset is a source. And I am not misinterpreting anything, you have to know what kind of source a source is before it is used. And is there a policy that states you can use boxsets as sources? Theoosmond (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there a policy saying that your suggested method is correct? The answer is no to both sides here - but the way you appear to interpret that is that 'your view is correct and others are wrong'. However the current policy that I can locate, MOS:TV, means grouping is currently open to consensus and there are no hard and fast rules. Therefore we should be able to discuss this point of how to group, without one side saying their side is the only way it is allowed to be done, because that is blatantly not true at this point in time. I say you are making up requirements as you say things need to be done a certain way, but you do not back it up with any existing policy in support of your view and when I search myself to try and confirm if you are correct, I cannot locate anything to back up your points. Trust me, I wish I could find stuff to back you up here, it would make this conversation easier for everyone involved. Dresken (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I found it ironic today that the colours used for each table are chosen from the boxsets and the Series articles themselves use a photo of the boxset as their infobox photo - but some people are saying that the grouping for the episodes can't come from the boxset. Dresken (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the colour of the tables is irrelevant, it carries no infomation what so ever about anything, it was a personal choice by editors to make them the same colour as the boxsets. And it is not ironic in the slightest, since it was AlexTheWhovian who made the change, and you know he's against the use of boxsets. And the reason we can't use boxsets to determine if a special goes on a particular table is that it is unsourced info if The Christmas Invasion is part of series 2, The Runaway Bride is part of Series 3 etc. unless someone finds proof. They are only products until someone finds out how the episodes that go in them are chosen. Theoosmond (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I seem to have sidetracked you with my small comment about an inconsistency I thought was strange in all of this. You haven't responded to any of the important points and questions I raised in my previous comment (dated 03:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)) which I actually think are several magnitudes more pertinent to this discussion. Dresken (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Two things: One: why are people commenting here instead of in the next part of this section? A break was putr in but its not being utilised! Two: up to series 6 of the revived series we also have production codes and they agree with boxsets eg "The Christmas Invasion" has production code 2X, this has previously been determined as absolute fact and properly sourced else it wouldnt be allowed under Wiki policy. So as they agree with boxsets we can determine that boxsets should be regarded as an acceptable source! The production codes show a clear link to series. The only time it ever broke down is for the 2008-2010 specials as they decided to carry on using 4 when they didnt consider those specials as part of series 4, this was clearly a one off though. Lotrjw (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lotrjw: You can't just say it was a one off without proper sourcing. And the reason the production codes are like that is becuase the Christmas specials were produced with the upcoming series, probably for finacial reasons, but it doesn't mean that those episodes are 'part' of those series. Christmas specials are separate episodes and should be respected as such. @Dresken:I'm saying I'm right no more, no less arrogantly than you, but you're treating boxsets as a godsend, which will allow us to make the page all nice and clean and tidy, but there are big problems. If you look at this link, it says we should group episodes with the indentifier of the series (e.g Series 1), and we don't know if the BBC puts Christmas specials under identifiers, and it would be orignal research to say that The Christmas Invasion is part of series 2 or whatever. Theoosmond (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, it shows you are willing to discuss the matter I am concerned about. However I disagree with your interpretation of the part of the policy I believe you are referring. Please let me explain why - I interpret that it has two parts - a policy statement and some examples - I will quote it in two parts as I want to discuss the distinction (but for those reading here it is one sentence): Policy: "If the episode lists includes episodes from multiple seasons, give them appropriate section headers", Examples: "such as "Season 1", "Season 2", or "Series 1", "Series 2" if that is the identifier for the show.". So the policy part says to split up episodes if there are multiple seasons - that part we all agree on. It also says that the headings should be appropriate, which I would believe means identifies what is in the section. However the examples given are by no means a definitive list of options to use, as even on this page we also use headings to split by Doctor as well - using the Doctor headings to split does seems entirely appropriate for this article - even though in some places it can be confusing when a Season has been split in two parts by this. Now you seem to believe I am saying that specials are part of a season, I am not. I am saying the groupings could be by boxsets - as long as the headings are appropriate and identify the episodes contained in that section. I would also support that the tables themselves can identify specials as you have shown with your previous edits to Series 6 and Series 7). Dresken (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I did once make edits like this one, but it was swiftly reverted (I did not seek consensus after that), and my present idea fails, I'll try to push for that. Now, I wouldn't want the episodes to be grouped by boxset, but rather by aspects of the BBC episode guide (ignoring the 'Series 9 omnibus' and other obvious things to ignore) as this seems to be most likely what the BBC believes. Anyway, if you're main worry is the messiness of this page, I can attmept to make sandboxes to see what various ideas would look like, to give us more of a visual attempt idea. Another thing to consider is there is a page (List of Doctor Who Christmas specials) which the table of could be inserted into this page. Theoosmond (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dresken: I am in full agreement with what you are suggesting, its very reasonable. @Theoosmond: having a table just for Christmas Specials is no good as the order of the episodes is mucked up! Dresken's suggestion is good as it splits a Christmas Special from the series while grouping it in the same table for neatness, as in the tables for series 6 and 7. You can still put in the disclaimer of 'Christmas specials arent strictly considered part of the series they are grouped with and have been placed in series for neatness, according to how the BBC group them on complete series boxsets.' This would I feel be a good compromise. Lotrjw (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I am happy with the way this sounds - and I think sandboxing is a great idea to consider a few options and get the change right. I hope others will get on board here as I honestly believe it is the middle ground between the two. However I am wary on how divisive and sensitive this topic has been - and I think some have grown wary as the discussion has gone on for a while - it could be wise to give it a little bit of time for others that have fallen a little silent to participate again - as I wouldn't want work to go to waste if we still have not reached consensus with them as well. I'm happy to go ping them to highlight where we have gotten to if there hasn't been much input from them by tomorrow. To clarify this is the BBC episode guide you were indicating - and you would like to use it as a source for identifying/sectioning within each table itself? I wouldn't take issue with that, though if it were used for the overall article heading/main grouping - I could see potential for it to be open to interpretation and a conflict of opinion - which is why I have argued for the main grouping to come from the Boxsets. I'm also happy to help out where I can to get the sandboxes options - let me know if there is something I can do there. Some ideas for how it could be done, as I am sure people have many ideas on how it should look, and I know I could be supportive behind several options, none of the following seem bad to me: Table has subheadings (as per Series 6 and Series 7), Specials identified in the same row (a new column, a word/glyph used instead of a dash in episode, a word/glyph beside the episode title, row highlighting), a header/footer text detailing what are the specials. Dresken (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC) 'Edit I've fixed the link

I cant access the link to the BBC episode guide in the way you have set the link up, I can however after going into edit mode take the URL and place that straight into my browser, so you might want to just post the URL as is instead of a broken hyperlink. This page I see has all Christmas episodes except 'The Next Doctor' and 'The Husbands of River Song' are grouped with series and almost as the boxsets do, with the one exception that 'The End of Time' parts 1 and 2 have been classed as series 5 which does not make any sense! Its always been accepted that the 2008-2010 specials were as a group and that works, so I would see mucking this around would be unnecessary.

As far as a 'word/glyph' as you put it what about the letter "S" with the year or "CS(year)" or even just the last two digits of the year with the "CS", instead of the "-", with non Christmas episodes just having an "S" and the month/two digit year? EG 'The Christmas Invasion' would be "CS'05", 'The Waters of Mars' would be "S11/09", whereas 'The Day of the Doctor' could just be "S'13" as its the only non Christmas Special from that year. What do people think on that? would a note at the top or bottom of the page be needed to explain this? Lotrjw (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

A note to explain would be required for the word/glyph - something like the endnote comment for missing episode † in the early seasons Season 3 . I think we can avoid the part date - as the episode airing date is already in the table anyway. I fine either way if people want a different or the same word/glyph for Christmas vs other specials. Dresken (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I've created four sandboxes; the first one has 'CS's in the episode number column when the episode next to it is a Christmas special; the second one has the Christmas specials detatched from the series completely: the third one has the tables put together based on boxsets, but has headings to denote which episodes are the specials and the fourth one is similar to the third one, but 'The Husbands of River Song' is left as a separate table. Please take a look at them and state your opinion. Theoosmond (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I personally prefer the 3rd one2.26.206.85 (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the first one, the third one or the fourth one. The best one is the second, although I would change it so that each special has a '–' in the Episode column, all other List of X episodes do this for specials. 90.196.193.86 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The 3rd one is my favorite version, although I would be happy with the 1st one, I would tolerate the 2nd, but the 3rd one is just as it is now except the Specials are much more pronounced if they are joined to a series.Lotrjw (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly thank you Theoosmond, you have gone to a lot of effort here to present examples for us to discuss. To people commenting, rather than only selecting your favourite. Could you also make comment whether you believe any are violating the MOS:TV and why - or if you believe the facts represented are incorrect and why. I believe this will assist with finding a way forward. Dresken (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason I don't like the first one, the third or the fourth one is because if it's under a heading in the table it may as well not be there. I think Christmas specials should be separate, they are not part of the series. 90.196.193.86 (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - we had also been discussing have the section headings be appropriate to the contents of the table - but it looks like it was overlooked when we were trying out different table options. I have updated the 1st, 3rd, 4th to have different headings like we were discussing - it's to give an indication of direction - the exact format still up for discussion. Dresken (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It was agreed that listing them by years was not an option, so the first one, the third one and the fourth one are ruled out. 90.196.193.86 (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly listing by year not being an option was not agreed anywhere - even though I concur I don't believe it is the right option. Which leads to my second point, that is not what the first, third and fourth options show anyway. Dresken (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@90.196.193.86: Dont make this something its not to try and dismiss things, its not constructive! The 1st, 3rd and 4th options DONT list by year, they show the year in brackets as an easier identifier as to when the series or special is from.

@Dresken:or someone else that knows how this works could an arbitrary break get put in so that we dont have to keep going so far up to reply? Someone did put the one 'Consistently with other to shows' in but hardly anyone took it up could it be rehashed somehow? Lotrjw (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the fourth option is inconsistent and WP:OR since "The Husbands of River Song" is included in the complete series 9 boxset, so if we are using that as a source, we should be consistent. I like the third option, but I don't like the verbosity of "and Special (Year)" (which is incorrect anyway, as "Special" should be lowercase), and I would prefer to keep using "—" rather than blanks or "CS". nyuszika7h (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Covenience (arbitrary) break 3

I put in a break due to the length of the discussion. As I said before, the best one is the second one, although I would change the "CS" in the episode column for "The Snowmen" to a "–". The first, third and fourth options don't work because the headings are "Series X (year) ans Specials (year)", this doesn't make sense, as it is stating that the specials are not part of the series, so why are they there? We seem to be agreed that they are not part of any series, as shown by not including them in episode and story counts, proposing using headings in the tables and proposing adding "and Specials" to each series heading. So why should they be grouped with them? Even boxsets show they are separate, for instance the Series 9 boxset says "Includes all 12 episodes plus specials"[7], showing they do not consider the specials as part of the series. Also, Volume DVDs and Part 1 and 2 DVDs show they are separate as they are not included (apart from Series 7: Part 2 which included "The Snowmen"). On the official Doctor Who website, the specials are listed separately[8]. No official source backs-up grouping specials with any series. The BBC most likely just put Christmas specials on the next available boxset, apart from when they are officially grouped with other specials. It is highly unlikely the BBC include specials with boxsets for any other reason. Other users have proposed contacting the BBC, but there is no point as they won't reply, they will only reply if it is important, for example a serious complaint. 90.196.193.86 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

My support is for the 3rd one without the (and special) on the hidings also the series 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 DVD box sets make know distinction between the specials and the regular episodes simply saying they are the complete series and listing the episodes ever in a booklet or on the box with know distinction also series 2 volume 1 includes the Christmas invasion and the doctor the widow and the wardrobe was included because of complaints from fans that it was missing original in the amusement the series 9 cover art dos make a distinction but there is a possibility the artwork my change before the release date 2.26.206.85 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

But that's my point, if they have a heading, there is no reason for them to be there. As I explained above, no official source backs-up grouping them with any series. 90.196.193.86 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@90.196.193.86: The whole point of doing this is a compromise some want them separate and some want them together, this groups them with the series that Boxsets do, but stresses that they arent actually part of the series. I like this compromise and I feel its the best way forward, its neat and tidy and does do what both sides want effectively. I am fine if people prefer the '-' for a special instead of 'S' or 'CS' it was only a suggestion after all. Lotrjw (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

If they aren't part of the series, they shouldn't be there. Also, that isn't really a compromise as it is listing them by boxsets, which does not satisfy those (such as me) who want them separate and are against using boxsets. 90.196.193.86 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

maybe your right there, but most people seem to agree on using boxsets only a few such as you seem to disagree. The argument against using boxsets stems from people considering them not part of the series along with people not liking not knowing why the BBC puts a certain special with a certain boxset. This I certainly felt was resolved by stating that they weren't strictly part of the series. If a consensus cant be reached I feel there is no hope of ever resolving this and as such we risk the page being locked down for good in the state that it is now! Lotrjw (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: The present system is just to put the Christmas special with the next series and I followed that idea when creating the fourth sandbox, so it's not original research. Theoosmond (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Theoosmond: Well, the present system follows boxsets apart from "The Husbands of River Song". Since series 10 will start with another special, it wouldn't make sense to put "The Husbands of River Song" at the beginning of series 10. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll admit that the argument against is flimsy. When you think about it, the Series 9 boxset saying "Includes all 12 episodes plus specials" could mean that it also contains Series 9's specials, it is open to interpretation, meaning it can't be used as evidence. We can't use the website for three reasons, firstly they are probably listed separately on the website because they don't add the section for each series until a couple of weeks before the first episode airs, secondly grouped specials are listed on their own, and finally the website is run by the BBC not the producers. I think we should use boxsets, although I am opposed to adding "and Specials (year)" to headings, they should remain the same (Series X (year)). Using boxsets is sourced, it makes sense and it works perfectly. To be honest, I didn't like listing them separately last time round. Also, listing them separately doesn't work for all specials, "The Snowmen" aired in the middle of Series 7. Listing them separately also creates problems on other pages such as List of Doctor Who cast members, List of Doctor Who home video releases, Companion (Doctor Who), and also creates problems for templates. We need a system that works for all specials, past and future, and therefore boxsets are the only option. 90.196.193.86 (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Are we finally gaining consensus for Boxsets? --Lotrjw (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears the conversation here is going towards consensus. However I think it is important to get some previous commenters back - I don't want us to go to the effort of making a change to only get it going around in circles again - I am leaving some messages now. To save a lot of reading for anyone coming in now I'm attempting a quick summary of it below Dresken (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of consensus: the MOS:TV does not limit what groupings to use for episodes as long as headings are appropriate, therefore boxsets can be a valid source for episode grouping if used with appropriate headings. However a stronger indication of episodes that are specials is agreed to be required within the tables.

Just thought I'ld state my opinion, sandbox 2 would be best in my opinion, but I could cope with sandbox 3 (with the headings like that, only writing special (not specials) where appropiate, eg. 'Series 2 and special (2005)' not 'Series 2 and specials (2005). There was only one special in 2005!). It would be best to stick to some kind of episode list, so I don't really like sandbox 4, even though I don't think boxsets are the best episode list to use. I wouldn't like to see any 'CS's either. Theoosmond (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy with what you are saying for using sandbox 3, I'm very happy we are actually building a consensus now. Lotrjw (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm partial to the second sandbox myself. Then there's zero issues of where they belong. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope we dont start to go round in circles again please! Lotrjw (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Do not diss another editors views based entirely upon your own. Either remain civil during this discussion or cease contributing to it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt offended by my comment, I just feel that we were starting to build towards consensus and you came up with something different again. Have you got a view on what the potential consensus is? Lotrjw (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I dropped contributing to this discussion a while ago, but came back out of courtesy due to the request from another editor discussing here. I didn't come up with anything different - the example already existed in the second sandbox, so I went with it. This has become very TL;DR, so care to enlighten me? Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you please provide a sourced reason for why we shouldn't use boxsets and for why we should list them separately. 90.192.195.182 (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No. Simply because I have decided they should be listed separately, doesn't mean I need a source on why all the other choices are not suitable. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm partial to the 3rd one. Etron81 (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: You need source to back up your argument, without a source your argument is invalid. You keep on dismissing boxsets without providing a reason and saying we should list them separately without providing a source that supports this. 90.192.195.182 (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. Any source can be challenged by anyone. It's up to you, the person who claims the source is reliable, to show that it is reliable. That is, you have to confirm it rather than expect someone else to deny it (see WP:BURDEN). DonQuixote (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

As to the above discussion, my two-bits...I don't mind if it's grouped according to broadcast (series separate from specials) or according to home video release (boxsets), as both are in the public domain, just as long as it's consistent and clear. DonQuixote (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This is where I'm at as well - as a side note, any solution we come up with for the Christmas specials should apply to 5 Doctors as well - it was produced and transmitted outside the normal season, just like the Christmas specials. The BBC episode guide also lists it separately (in both it's 1-episode and 4-episode forms). Looking at older reference works, Peter Haining and Jean-Marc Lofficier group it with Season 20, but the Howe-Stammers-Walker books have it separate Etron81 (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Etron81:I dont know how we can apply the same set up to the classic era as no complete season Boxsets have ever been produced? I understand if we were to go down the separates line of working, but with Boxsets there is a clear divider! I suppose that if we are grouping the revived series' by Boxsets we could just leave 'The 5 Doctors' grouped with season 20. Lotrjw (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought, but how about using DWM? We use it for other matters to do with how to classify episodes, and the producers approve how the Season Surveys are set out. It seems like a better source than boxsets. 90.192.195.182 (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy with groupings by boxsets if that's what most editors want, but I would like it so it's clear the the special is detatched from the series, and doesn't seem too much a part of the series. Theoosmond (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lotrjw:That was my intention - forgot to spell that out - if the Christmas specials stay in the series per the boxsets with a heading, then 5 Doctors should stay in Season 20 with a heading. Etron81 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I am opposed to adding "and Special(s)" to the section headings, it isn't necessary. I am also opposed to headings in the table as they do not need to be there and are an eye sore. 90.192.195.182 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@90.192.195.182: The very things you are opposed to are the very things that are helping to build consensus on using boxsets as a listing method. Lotrjw (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

If those are the conditions of using boxsets, then I oppose using boxsets all together. 90.192.195.182 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You could always suggest anything else that might work though to help with using Boxsets.Lotrjw (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lotrjw:You can't stop people who disagree with you just because it won't help gain consensus. It is outrageous behaviour, people are entitled to their own opinions, and can disagree with the potential consensus. You do not own this article (see WP:OWN), everyone has equal say and everyone can say what they like. If this is your attitude, I think you should leave this discussion. Theoosmond (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Lotrjw may have not come across as intended, as I am sure we are all happy that we are at a stage where we are actually discussing the options and not each side fighting to be heard. @90.192.195.182: Overall it appears you are okay with the tables being grouped either way - but have concerns about the section titles. The majority of the words that you objecting to have to appear on the page in either option. So, other than location, the word 'and' is the only difference. Would another option seem better for you in this case? 'Series 7 & specials', 'Series 7/specials', 'Series 7 Boxset', 'Complete Series 7', or perhaps a note under the heading ("includes specials")? Or perhaps if the specials are indicated well in the table, do others feel the current headings would be appropriate? Dresken (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Theoosmond: I know I dont own this article! I am quite vocal about it I suppose! Im sorry if you feel offended that I am. I just dont want to see any hope of consensus fall apart! Lotrjw (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

But there is no real consensus if many people don't believe in consensus. Consensus is far more effective and permanent if the majority actually agrees with it. And anyway, consensus is not unaminous, so it doen't really matter if there's one editor who disagrees with the new consensus. Theoosmond (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Since all but two editors are OK with the third sandbox, have we gained consensus and should we implement the changes? Remember, consensus does not have to be unaminous. Theoosmond (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No, we are still discussing options, and being ok with it isn't the same as agreeing with it. My problem with the headings being "Series X (year) and Specials (year)" is that it doesn't make sense, it makes them appear overly unconnected and readers who weren't involved in this discussion won't know why they are there, which will result in discussions being started questioning the system and the logic or lack thereof behind it. Another problem with boxsets is what do we do before we know the contents of the boxsets? We can't have a special not following the system for 6+ months. Now, what do people think of my above proposal of using DWM? 90.192.195.182 (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@90.192.195.182: Can you explain how that would work using DWM? Could you perhaps do a sandbox for it so we can have an idea? Also I know you dont like the "Series X (year) and Specials (year)" for the 3rd sandbox, do you have any ideas of what can be done instead that might be more appropriate? Before the Boxset comes out a temporary assumption could be made as to where we think a special could go, with a not to actually say it is subject to change based on what happens with the next complete series boxset and lets face it under normal circumstances its fairly obvious where a Christmas special should go according to how boxsets have gone so far. Lotrjw (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@90.192.195.182: I do not need a source to back up my opinion. I am not disagreeing that boxsets can be used - if that is what this discussion amounts to, then great. However, my opinion is the second sandbox. Following your own example, you have not provided a source on why boxsets are valid sources themselves, you have only given your opinion. Just as I have. But that is neither here nor there. My opinion stays the same. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not opposed to using other sources - or indeed a balance of sources if we can agree on those. But I would like to know more about DWM would be used before I comment - as I don't have any copies or familiarity with how that could work. Ultimately I am opposed to having several tables with one row - when I believe the facts can be represented accurately without resorting to doing that. The reason I mostly support of the use of boxsets for achieving that is the Series articles seem to be largely about the boxsets already - so to me it seems unnecessary to split the purpose of those articles and this list when they are so related (hence the use of transclusion). I am supportive of getting the options on the table. I hope at least we can agree at this stage that it is a matter of style/presentation and no one is intending on misrepresenting the facts. Dresken (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The biggest problem with boxsets is how long it is between the Christmas special and the boxset details being announced, we can't just assume, it has to be confirmed by a source, meaning that we will have a Christmas special not following the system for 6+ months. We need a system that will allow us to list specials where they belong immediately, not 6 or so months after. 90.192.195.182 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

it's worth noting that apart from series 9 all series allredey mache the DVDs box sets and that the series 9 info box lists the series as 12 plus 2 suppemetrey 2.26.206.85 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@90.192.195.182:Why do we need to put the specials in lists immediatly? Theoosmond (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Also, where is the DWM list? Theoosmond (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I suppose we can assume that a Special will be included in a boxset as it is more likely than not, and if not, it can be removed. As long as the section headings remain "Series X (year)" I am more than happy with using boxsets. I agree with the headings in the tables as they help differentiate between Specials and the actual series. I can't find Season Survey results for earlier than 2014, so using DWM is out the window. 90.192.195.182 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, since we don't seem to be able to use DWM, I think we've reached consensus with the headings in the tables, just not the title headings on this page, so, should we put headings in the tables? Theoosmond (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and also add "The Husbands of River Song" to Series 9. 90.192.195.182 (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes go for it if consensus has been reached! Lotrjw (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Well all but 1 user agrees, so consensus to use boxsets and add headings to tables (but not change section headings) has been reached. 90.192.195.182 (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Theoosmond (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

WoW thank goodness for that! Its looking good too!Lotrjw (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree, thinking that the edits make the lists look terrible, unslightly, ugly and unencyclopedic, but hey, glad some form of consensus could be worked out. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Section Sub-headings

However, we must conclude the dicussion about section sub-headings, my stance is neutral, I don't care with or without the proposed changes. Theoosmond (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If there's consensus, this discussion is useless. The discussion about section subheadings was concluded when you typed {{done}}. Do not try to extend this further. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree leave it there its just not worth dragging something up at this stage!Lotrjw (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur - my personal stance on the headings component was happy either way. Dresken (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Consistently with other to shows

I've looked at other British tv shows with a large number of Christmas specials only fools and horses list all Christmas specials sepraley exsep when they are from the same year my family lists all Christmas specials even there 5th series wich ended in 2004 and includes the 2004 and 2005 specials and not going out list some with the regular series and others sepretler 2.26.206.85 (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)also the series box sets are put together by the bbc with imput from the production team as indicated by the fact that the series box sets included fowedes by the production team shorly if the bbc groups them a serten way then that should be how they are groped regardless of there reasoning 2.26.206.85 (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree 2.26.206.85 Lotrjw (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Have people given up on this? Lotrjw (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.