Q: Why are early series called seasons? In British English we have TV series.
A: Most sites, such as BBC's Classic Episode Guide and A Brief History, as well as most Doctor Who reference books, use the term "season" for the classic "series". There's a longer discussion here. This has links to the previous discussions.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on August 29, 2011.
As of right now, the following sections remain to be cited(remove and update timestamp):
Series 3
Series 4
Series 6
Series 7
Series 8
Specials (2008-2010)
Specials (2013)
Specials (2022)
Tenth Doctor (partially)
@OlifanofmrTennant and Alex 21: I think the current prose is good enough, or will be with a few minor tweaks. When this is done, we should nom it for FL- so I wanted to as you both if you think so too, and if you would like to co-nom it, as Alex is the largest contributor, and Oli is the third largest, and has also been adding refs recently. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The body prose is fine but the lead isn’t. It’s a lot of explaining the specific details (I.e the numbering system) and not really an overview of the list itself. Unless you want to do it I’ll have something written soon enough Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)16:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the same issue with the lead when we were discussing the feasibility of this potential topic. I remember it being a critique in a failed similar featured list candidate of mine (in terms of having the list split across decades). As we've both said, it definitely needs to focus more on Doctor Who post-2004. TheDoctorWho(talk)18:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'll be able to help with the lead at the moment, refs for the notes I'll try to find, index and viewership I think you should just link to the classic epsiode list, as otherwise it would be too many refs. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completly forgot. There is zero chance a Gt makes it in January because of series 15 and also how long an FL takes. I think that at the earliest late May/July is the soonest you could reasonably get a GT. Which is better for my strategy of doing the bare minimum to pass Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we wait till then, we would have a Series 16 article too- S15 has been in mainspace since October 2023; a line must be drawn somewhere. There is a discussion of trying a new scoring format, with no elimination on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup- that's what I was going for with basically nominating all this early around January. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, it's per WP:GT? rule 3c, with even some current retention periods listed at the bottom. It seems 3 months is the limit, so we would have until September to promote S15. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reason for your mass removal of valid information? There is no reason for the dispute about if story numbering should be in the lead. If it should be included it wouldn't be in the lead, possilby in the series overview. Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)04:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should absolutely be included in the prose; thus, the lead. Every other television article uses overall episode numbers; this, as far as I am aware, is the only unique situation that uses a different episode number storying (story number). Can you show me where in your edit there is an explanation for this, so that readers are aware of the importance of story number rather than overall episode number? The existance of the lead is to summarize the article. Furthermore, the inclusion/exclusion of particular stories, as noted and sourced in the prose, is of importance to the story numbering as well.
You also updated this article to include information only on recent Doctors and modern-era showrunners. The lead of this article is transcluded to List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989), thus meaning that your content on recent material was also transcluded there - why did you not include information on any classic era Doctor, to be transcluded to the classics era article?
If you could also care to explain why you reverted without a reason, when I provided you one?
It is partially transcluded, based on the consensus of past discussions years past. Both articles refer to the same show, hence the transclusion of the lead's introduction. Is the lead entirely transcluded? No, just the relevant introduction, and then each separate article has content relevant to its scope, per your own concern. Did you make almost the entire lead transcluded in your edit, because you moved the location of the <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags in this edit? Yes.
Maybe if you, or any of the other newer editors involved, researched this before you mass rewrote the lead into a chunk of poor grammar, and also reverted without reason, this dispute wouldn't exist. Now that you know of this, you're welcome to do so. -- Alex_21TALK06:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the situation with story number should probably be in the lead (though, it being in the series overview wouldn't be that bad either- as it's just about using a different numbering way). However, you don't have to be this combatative every time, politeness works. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am being polite, by describing why this is an issue. It's called civility. Being reverted with a reason is not combatative; reverting without reason is. I recommend you relook at your values if you find reverting to automatically be combatative.
Also, it is in the series overview, under the "Serials" column. Perhaps change that to "Stories", as the revived era contains no serials. -- Alex_21TALK06:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One season out of fourteen so far. No source that I have come across refers to multi-parters as serials, and "The End of Time" and "Spyfall" were removed from a serial designation for this reason. Serials are a specific form of production. -- Alex_21TALK06:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the serials of Classic Who are called only serials mostly. Would you like to split the list in two, if you want to argue about which of the synonym should be used in the list. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All serials are stories, but not all stories are serials. If you can't agree on that fact, "Serials/Stories" works just as well. -- Alex_21TALK07:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"a story or play appearing in regular instalments on television or radio or in a magazine.": as I said, a synonym. Should we filter out what we want to call a serial and what to call a story? But fine, seasons/serials is already there, why not serials/stories as well? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you aren't. You reverted, and gave the most generic edit summary ever. It fills like WP:Ownership, not a concern for the content of the edits.
I apologize if that's how you... fill. Believe me, I was absolutely concerned for the grammar of the introduced lead. Re-reverting without a reason is combative. Kindly keep talk page content to content, thanks. -- Alex_21TALK06:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason in the edit summary comes off as seeming like you own the article. your mass removal of valid information. sounds passive-aggressive, so it's very much about conduct too. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
