Talk:Doctor Who series 14: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doctor Who series 14 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: British Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Doctor Who Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Fiction Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Determining the name of this article as either "Series 14" or "Season 1" has already previously been suggested and discussed. Before re-opening this discussion, review the discussions listed below. Talk:Doctor Who series 14#Article title change? Opened November 2023 Talk:Doctor Who series 14#Requested move 2 December 2023 Opened December 2023 Talk:Doctor Who series 14#Season 1 vs Series 14 Opened December 2023 Talk:Doctor Who series 14#Formal requested move Opened May 2024 (active)

Why no mention? Is it confirmed that she is only in for the 60th anniversary specials? Romomusicfan (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it confirmed that she's in anything further than the 60th anniversary specials? -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was said to suggest she wasn't, she was just announced as the new companion.Romomusicfan (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, specifically for the 60th anniversary specials. Milly Gibson has been announced as another new companion from Series 14. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A line in this article states "Ncuti Gatwa was announced to have been cast as the Fourteenth Doctor." This isn't factually correct as the press release by the BBC specifically avoided calling him the "Fourteenth" Doctor, instead stating that he was cast as the new Doctor to take on the role. Both sources provided for the line do not mention the words "Fourteenth Doctor" and show that he was referred to as the new Doctor and not numbered as the Fourteenth initially as the article claims. A more accurate line would be that he was announced to have been cast as the "new" or "next" Doctor. Flabshoe1 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before. The press release is a primary source; it was widely reported by secondary sources that he would play the Fourteenth Doctor. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that secondary sources are more useful in determining what to put here than the primary source is?

The secondary source page literally says "gives author's own thinking" and is "one step removed from an event"

Where has it also been discussed? Panda815 (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, yes. Wikipedia is based off of secondary sources. If you don't know this, I recommend reading up on our reliable sources and verifiability policies before further editing. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out Alex21. I had no idea that the Wikipedia policy contradicted itself like that. Might be an issue worth looking at? Panda815 (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Panda815 (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not contradicting at all. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is contradicting. This page clearly states that "Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized". You just pointed out the WP:PST says that secondary sources are what the entirety of Wikipedia is based on. Secondary sources are "author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event". Secondary sources are not knowledge that is already established and recognised, as the PST page admits that secondary sources are in fact, just the musings of the source's author. That is what is contradictory.

That is your opinion; however, this talk page is not for your opinions on Wikipedia's firmly established policies, but for this particular article. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly relevant to this article and it's clear to see how we got to this point if you read the entire thread. Obviously my challenging this doesn't mean I can change the consensus of this branch of the talk page but the discussion can remain talking about wikipedia policies. Panda815 (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about the content of the article here. If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies, then post about it on the talk page of that particular policy. Secondary sources contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary source. They are explaining the existing facts, not creating new facts.

Yes, I've read this discussion, and it's going around in circles, just like your past discussions. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this one when you say going around in circles, it only did that because those replying to me carried on pushing their point without actually listening to how I was disagreeing with them. They repeated the same thing without expanding or answering my questions. They STILL haven't now.Panda815 (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same as what you're doing. And again: this discussion is still not discussing the content of this article. Just policies and past discussions. Move on. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just pinging @Alex 21: as a regular contributor. Episode 2 is currently listed under Robinson's third block based on this source from the article. I did however notice, the most recent source states: "Gold revealed that Episode Two is one of two episodes Chessell is filming," which would place Episode 2 in the fourth block with Chessell. May be worth removing it for now until we have definitive confirmation? This CultBox source also says "It consists of at least two episodes with the first one referred to as the “opening episode”" in reference to Robinson's block which may imply Episode 1 rather than 2? TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've gone ahead and removed the episodes from the production blocks. This is the direct quote from DWM and Gold, so you're quite right. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Russell T Davies in his recent interview with SFX magazine, this season/series will not be officially referred to as series 14, but instead as season 1. Should the article title be changed to reflect this? 2603:7080:E935:E213:349B:7F0A:1B2B:26E2 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to wait until the naming of the upcoming series is confirmed directly by the BBC, because up to now most media outlets have referred to it as series 14. It would also be worth seeing how the BBC distinguish the 2024 series from the 1963 and 2005 series. SingleTransferableNerd (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the recent filming that started for Series 15 the Doctor Who twitter referred to as Ncuti's "second series" so yeah waiting makes sense Domino2097 (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It'll make sense to update the naming if the BBC do, but there's no point doing it now while we can only guess at what the naming convention will be. There's no rush, we can just update when it's confirmed. El Dubs (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is already being discussed at Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)#Series 14 (2024), and it should definitely not be moved. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're beyond wrong. Awful person. 72.135.54.84 (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting response from a random IP on an outdated discussion I now support, but sure. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We know that Chris Roebuck edited block 1, directed by Dylan Holmes Williams and produced by Vicki Delow, but he also edited Block 4, directed by Ben Chessell and is produced by Chris May. https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-roebuck-53824860/?originalSubdomain=uk Since May is the credited producer on Block 4, I feel like that's sufficent enough to be listed on the production table. -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) -TrixieCat123 (User talk:TrixieCat123) 00:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ed17 What part of the poster markets anything to do with the season itself, such as marketing related to the season number, year, network or airing details? I seem to see a character and a logo, related to the programme rather than the season, and that's it. Can you show me a reliable source that uses this image and describes it as marketing specifically for Series 14? -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Rcsprinter123 as well. I'm completely baffled by your stance here, Alex. In what universe is a promotional poster of a TV show's main character, one that was released to create anticipation for a series' upcoming release, not marketing for the series? The original source article is entirely about the hype for the upcoming series release, and of course the BBC's release of the poster was part of their marketing campaign to draw viewers to the new series. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in shorter terms: What part of the poster promotes the season itself? Does it say "Series 14", does it have a date, a window year for its release? Or is it just a poster of a main character? Look at every other image used in every other season article, and note how they all actually reference the season in question in the image. Does this poster reference Series 14? -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21 Marketing the main character of a TV show is in this case indistinguishable from marketing for the TV show itself. And not only that, this image was created to market series 14. There is no rule that I know of that says images on TV show season articles need to specifically reference that particular season within the image to be eligible for inclusion.

Also, I selected Dynasty (2017 TV series, season 1) at random from a category of a recent year of TV shows. It uses a plain image of what I presume is the main cast. (At random is indeed random, so a grain of salt is appropriate. Still, I found it interesting.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying it, it's a promotional poster for the Fifteenth Doctor, so it belongs at the Fifteenth Doctor article. Why not upload the Ruby Sunday poster? This means it fails WP:NFCCP #8, as the picture of the Doctor does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, as there's already such a promotional image at Fifteenth Doctor - what does this particular image add?

Compare this poster with the Series 13 poster; it has the season title and premiere date. Compare this poster with the Series 13 poster; it has the season title and premiere date.

Referring to the source as "Doctor Who season 14: Release date speculation and latest news", that is simply a constantly-updated compilation of the latest news, it definitely isn't the original source. The Dynasty example, in my opinion, is definitely a poor example of a poster. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a poster needs to contain specific text to be deemed promotional material for a series/episode, if it is being used as such. However, in this instance the poster image is being used primarily to promote the Christmas special, not the series as a whole. See the social media posts that launched it after "The Giggle" aired: "Meet the new Doctor... returns Christmas Day 2023". One could argue that this image is promotional for "The Church of Ruby Road" in the same way the (equally text free) posters for the 60th episodes are, and is appropriate for use in that episode's infobox when the time comes. U-Mos (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Christmas specials aren't actually part of their respective seasons, we just group them together for the sake of convenience, and the 2023 specials article didn't have a poster until there was one respective of the entire group of specials, rather than the individual posters. We can absolutely upload the latest Christmas special-specific poster to The Church on Ruby Road once the episode has aired and the article is live. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21: I'm concerned that you're misunderstanding what I've said. These are the facts: this is a 1) promotional poster for a TV show's main character—the character the entire show is named after, in fact—that was 2) released to promote the upcoming series in which 3) the new iteration of the character is to star. That line of thought leads to 4) that the promotional poster can be used as a non-free image in an article about the series. Of course we wouldn't use Ruby Sunday, as she's not the main character, and I'm surprised to see you raise that red herring. The Radio Times is the original source for the uploaded image; obviously the BBC is the original source as defined by who created it.

Clearly we're not going to get anywhere here, as you have a different interpretation of policies, so I've brought the image to FfD for wider input and will let a consensus there decide one way or another. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FfD link. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Sunday isn't a main character, come again? She's just of equal importance as the Fifteenth Doctor, and is set to be credited alongside him in the opening credits, hence main cast. Open the FfD as you see fit, there still remains WP:NORUSH to add in a poster, especially if, as above, it doesn't actually advertise Series 14, but rather an episode outside of the series. In only a few months, if not even less (given that we have confirmation that we'll see a Series 14 trailer directly after the Christmas special), such a poster will become available, one that compares to the examples I've already provided. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An new open discussion for the use of Season 1 vs Series 14, so that we can move forwards with this; a note that today's official trailer also uses Season 1. -- Alex_21 _TALK 18:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still for series 14 due to the structure of the series has not changed at all unlike between Classic and Modern but if the change does go ahead because I'm spiteful I would suggest Season 27 lol Domino2097 (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that last bit is just not collaborative editing at all. What do you mean, "the structure of the series"? -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well the way they film and produce the series hasn't changed at all like in Classic it was all multiple parts to a story and the seasons would be like 20+ episodes, where as this is gonna be 8 (likely) single story episodes just like the previous 13 series so in that way nothing has changed in production Domino2097 (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No official source has ever called it Series 14, but this is even further confirmation that the BBC are calling it Season 1. In doctor who unleashed there was a sign at the readthrough that said Season 1 too. I think by now it's fairly obvious that it's not going to be referred to as Series 14 anywhere and these pages need a plan for renaming. --MrModius (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that at this point it's definitely Season 1; however, some editors would prefer (based on the above discussion) for something like home media release to come out, meaning they're waiting (again, based on quotes) to wait several years. Aside from that, if there's agreement to rename the article, the issue is simply the disambiguation - what do we rename it to? -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike 2005, this isn't a revival. Also, naming it Season 1 would just be confusing for people who aren't hardcore fans of the show. The numbering was only reset for the Disney+ marketing so they would attract a new audience. Spectritus (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why we're suggesting disambiguating by year. This is not only a Disney+ feature, it's the BBC as well, although both are officially co-producers so both have equal weight. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anywhere verifying that this is a new and separate production from the 2005 series. It’s now a co-production between BBC Studios and Bad Wolf production as of the new 2023 specials. I wasn’t sure if Disney Plus counts, as they are just distributing it internationally. I do think if someone can find sources confirming that it’s new and separate, it warrants retitling the page.

Also not to get too far ahead, but has it been decided how the retitling will work? I was looking at other tv series that have had multiple incarnations to see how they title their season article. The first Twilight Zone series has the following formatting: “The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series, season 1)” Would that mean if this page got retitled to: “Doctor Who (2023 TV series, season 1)” you’ll have to go back and retitled all the 1963-1989 seasons with: “Doctor Who (1963 TV series, season 1” ? 2001:8003:2680:FB01:D9A8:62FA:591D:C912 (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing is, should a “List of Doctor Who episodes (2023-present)” page be needed? 2001:8003:2680:FB01:D9A8:62FA:591D:C912 (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your last question, definitely not, as that is not how television articles are split, per MOS:TVSPLIT and Wikipedia:Article splitting (television). -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, but Disney+ does count and I'm surprised if the likes of erstwhile "Alex Whovian" are resistant to the idea of crediting Disney+ as original network in infoboxes *in spite of the fact that not just documents, but greatest official-source being: The vanity-cards in the final-cuts of episodes in both BBC & Disney's runs, in and of itself.* But I'm afraid to spell-out that like always, if anybody like-minded shall couch their personal bias by hand-waiving it with the letter of archaic guidelines like MOS:TVINTL which do not account for binational/multinational "co-productions" (North American English) and but the spirit of MOS:TV as paradoxically conveyed in MOS:TVCATS, and that's why the best-practice for WP:TELEVISION articles is that every single network credited for co-commissioning the subject must be listed in the infobox (even if that other network takes weeks, at times even months and years, to originally screen the thing they co-commissioned). But somehow, that can't be the case for an exaggeratedly high-profile franchise on this project like now-BBC/Disney's Doctor Who, since quite a number of [animated] senior Wikipedians are too personally attached to the topic-area, that very human-flaw is bound to remain as that roadblock. ☮️ out. Greetings for New Year beforehand. —2409:40E3:D:6221:487C:A5FF:FEDB:F69C (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have an early fan of mine, how sweet. None of that changes the fact that Doctor Who is not a Disney+ production, they simply have the international distribution rights, just as how we wouldn't credit Netflix in any of their obtained productions from other networks, such as how they credit Riverdale as an "Original Netflix Production", despite it simply being airing rights. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming every single thing conveyed, exact letter-to-letter. And if that includes oh-so-rarely strawmanning the person whose position you don't agree with, that's certainly par for the course. As a shining senior Wikipedian, your reputation precedes you. (Yes, you do have a lengthy track-record of badwilled WP:BADGER towards junior Wikipedians making changes you don't approve of.) And consequently, so does Wikipedia's own. —2409:40E3:6D:5C9D:DC94:EDFF:FE13:E308 (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have an example of a show that had a season number reset. NINJAGO was animated by two companies: Wil Film and WildBrain. When WildBrain took over, therr were already 10 seasons of the show to begin with. But when LEGO was promoting and marketing this 'new' show, they reset the season count and now Season 1 of NINJAGO is Season 11. I think we should take this into account with Doctor Who too. Even though a new production company is taking over and the BBC is marketing Ncuti's first season as Season 1, it still is Series 14, as it's a continuation of the show, but it still is a new era. Ilovedoctorwhoandninjago (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose

• Doctor Who (1963-1996, series 1)
• Doctor Who (2005-2022, series 1)
• Doctor Who (2023-, series 1)

It's the simplest, cleanest solution, and is how iPlayer refers to the three separate eras. Flabshoe1 (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this as it does not follow WP:NCTV. Seasons are titled by the year of first release. Also "2023-" is an invalid date per MOS:DATERANGE. See Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series, season 4) for an example on how we title season pages similar to this. Gonnym (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Classic Who, they're seasons not series. And this new era isn't a revival and shouldn't be referred to as a seperate series. Spectritus (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my own opinion, but I think it's actually important that the article is renamed to Season 1 before it begins in May. I agree that it's now obvious from official sources (incl. the official website, trailers, RTD interviews, articles and commentaries, etc.) that this will be referred to as Season 1, and not Series 14. To people like us, who understand the show, having it named as Series 14 would not be important. However, I myself have sometimes been watching the show and brought up the Wikipedia page of the series to look for information about plots, characters, actors, etc. I imagine that people who are new viewers of the show, either via BBC or Disney+, will be doing the same thing, and they'll see on their TV guide/iPlayer/D+ that it is called Season 1. If they're trying to look it up online, they're going to have trouble if the article isn't titled by the official title, even more so if they're from another country and struggle to understand English, and watching the show for the first time. I think it's important to remember that these people aren't always existing fans of the show, and therefore it should be made as easy as possible for them to find what they're looking for. HTS126 (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the iPlayer designation of 'season 1' should be the tipping point to move the page. That hasn't happened yet. U-Mos (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - official sources now say Season 1 - IMO, we just need to decide what name format it should have, and what changes to previous season/series articles are needed, if any Etron81 (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still say wait. Moffat tried calling his first series 'series 1' back in 2010 for a while, and then changed his mind when he realised it was daft. 80.192.242.40 (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have at least a half dozen primary and secondary sources in support of Season 1 by now, including ongoing marketing materials. I'm an editor and have struggled to find these S14 and S15 pages myself based on the name so I can't imagine the confusion this is already causing for visitors. Mitchy Power (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is necessary to change the name to Season One. Nobody other than fans are calling it Series 14. Like someone else said, people who try to find the article for THIS season will be confused when they find themselves for an article for Series 14, not Season 1. It is also important to say that it is Season One (2024) or something like that to distinguish it from Season 1 (1963) and Series 1 (2005). 86.185.200.80 (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page names for each season/series could be named after what the BBC call the separate eras now: Doctor Who (1963-1996), Doctor Who (2005-2022), and Doctor Who (2023-) (or just 'Doctor Who' to represent the current era) e.g. Doctor Who (1963-1996, Season 1), Doctor Who (2005-2022, Series 1), Doctor Who (2023-, Season 1)/Doctor Who (Season 1) or just the year the season/series aired during e.g. Doctor Who (Season 1, 1963), Doctor Who (Series 1, 2005), Doctor Who (Season 1, 2024). Skipper93653 (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. 2A00:23C6:EBAB:E01:E59C:EE6F:1A03:5B3E (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

iPlayer is an official BBC website, and if we're waiting for an official designation, the BBC's official Doctor Who site already uses "Season 1".

Concerning the issue of confusion between pages for editors, you're absolutely right. Let's take a look at the pageviews for Doctor Who (season 1) and Doctor Who (series 1). Both articles peaked around 31 October and 1 November (the release of the Whoniverse collection), and have remained far higher since than before those dates, especially Series 1. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose "Season I" or "Seson One" – FreeRogue  ^{·  ·  · Talk ·  ·  ·} 06:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both are non-standard NCTV disambiguations. It's always the Arabic numeral. Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Spectritus (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When this discussion reaches a conclusion, please start a real WP:RM. Some of the proposed titles here ignore established guidelines so I'd like more outside eyes from editors more familiar with article titles to see this and close it. Gonnym (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say, even the French version of the article lists the page as "Season One" - https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9rie_t%C3%A9l%C3%A9vis%C3%A9e 2A00:23C6:EBAB:E01:E59C:EE6F:1A03:5B3E (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, here is the correct link: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saison_1_de_Doctor_Who,_troisi%C3%A8me_s%C3%A9rie 2A00:23C6:EBAB:E01:E59C:EE6F:1A03:5B3E (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's because they do it differently. Don't use the French Wiki as an example. Spectritus (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be named Season One. There are far too many sources using Season One for it to be disregarded prior to the season's debut. People mentioned Moffat and Chibnall allegedly wanting to call the first series of their eras "season one" also, but unlike those, we actually have official sources using "season one". ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting it should be "disregarded"—it's referenced in the article multiple times—but there are (currently) more sources using "series 14", so that should be the main title for now. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those sources acknowledge that Doctor Who is calling it season one. Both are in most of the headlines. The key difference is, only Season One is what it actually is. We know the BBC and Disney are not going to use the series 14 numbering because Disney doesn’t have the rights to distribute a series 14. Max does. What’s on the wiki matters and influences public perception. Let’s remove the confusion sooner rather than later. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until most sources primarily refer to it as "season 1", we shouldn't do the same here (in the title, at least). There's no need to rush. We consider the sources, not the "public perception". – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are operating off the existing public perception, not any sort of fact or inside knowledge. One of the first sources calling it season 14 even after the official marketing has begun says that calling it season 1 is simply unpopular. The deadline is now. The season is season 1. No need to be complacent. [1][2][3][4] ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the sources use "public perception" or "inside knowledge" isn't really relevant. The "official" name should be noted in prose, but the article title should use the common name—which, for now, is "series 14". It's not complacency; it's policy. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, @Rhain, it’s worth mentioning that a majority of those articles were before the official BBC push to use the term “season 1.” Therefore they shouldn’t be considered in the argument about what the common name is at this stage. Further, only a couple of those are high quality, reputable sources. We shouldn’t, for example, be heeding UPI.com and ScreenRant (especially not ScreenRant) to determine what the common name is. ChimaFan12 (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, most of them were published after the BBC's marketing decision—this has been in discussion since November; the articles are from December. (Not that it really matters—more weight is given to more recent sources, but the common name is still the common name regardless.) And while they're not exactly newspapers of record, most of the sources (including Screen Rant) are usable and suitable to use in this context. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it on the timeline, that’s on me for messing that up. I had thought it started 25th December. I wasn’t looking to dredge the conversation up but the realization (erroneous as it was) came up today. Is there any forum on this site I can go to regarding ScreenRant as a source? I have serious concerns about that that aren’t suited for this talk page. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Rant is considered "marginally reliable" for entertainment-related topics per WP:RSP, but generally unusable for anything more serious like BLP. The best place to start a new discussion about a source is the reliable sources noticeboard. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that using the term series 14 more significantly appeals to the doctor who fan base. The show has not changed significantly enough since new who began to classify it as “season one”. Furthermore, the way doctor who is referenced should be determined by the fans, as we are what keep the show running. By calling season one, a much greater appeal is brought to new fans as opposed to those of us who have stayed with doctor who for many years. Although this may be beneficial in some contexts, I would argue calling it season 1 greatly discredits what has previously been established in the last 61 years. Maybe put “series 14” and then (season one) in parenthesis? That way it acknowledges what the bbc is using and what many of us prefer. Or the other way around… Aristotlethelost (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that, usually, fans ultimately determine what the show will be referred to in fan spaces—but Wikipedia is not a fan space. We have policies for article titles, which specify that we use common names as dictated by reliable sources (not by fans). Whether it "discredits" fans is irrelevant. "Doctor Who series 14 (season 1)" does not follow guidelines for television titles, and "(season 1)" does not follow guidelines for parenthetical disambiguation. Hope that makes sense. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think notions such as "loyalty" or "respect" towards fans should be considered in this conversation. Although, as you said, most of the fans are referring to the new season as "series 14", which is a valid argument since this page should follow the most commonly reffered term and not the official one (except if the official one is the most common which is not the case) Horyzon1963 (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to measure what name "most of the fans" use, though. Instead, we measure the common name that reliable sources use. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reiterate what I said above, and what I said previously still stands. Per WP:ONESOURCE, we cannot rely too much on the BBC's arbitrary numbering and - let's call a spade a spade - is a cynical marketing ploy from the BBC and Disney. Wikipedia doesn't credit "Series 2" of EastEnders which was the BBC's attempt to hide the lockdown join. Let us also see what other sources say and review in due course. The new numbering may not stick - we wouldn't want to unmove everything in a year's time, would we? Spa-Franks (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We should wait and see what the common name is, not the "official" name. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. This is hardly applicable given the number of sources available. From multiple interviews an commentaries by the showrunner, ongoing marketing material for multiple platforms, secondary reporting to both of those reaffirming it as Season 1. And Notably the Official Stories List (which is the definitive source for numbering and seasons on List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present). There are many listings there which would not be seen as the common numbering yet to avoid confusion between viewers and contributors alike, the official source is stuck to. Mitchy Power (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the "Official Stories List" has never been "the definitive source" for the Wikipedia lists; those are sourced from decades of primary and secondary reporting leading to clear common names (whereas that "Official" list has only existed for a few years). At a quick glance, it appears most secondary sources are primarily sticking with "14" for the time being (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) and only a few others have committed to "season 1" (1, 2, 3). There's obviously still a chance that most will transition towards the latter as the episodes begin to air, but I see no reason for us to rush to that conclusion. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were 'official' sources for 2010 series being series 1, season 31 and series fnarg at different points, as wiki itself notes. It wasn't till series 6 that 2010 got set as series 5 'officially' keep as series 14 just now. Series 1 feels like marketing gimik that, like 2010, will go away. If it doesn't, we can change later. Wiki is not paper. 80.192.242.40 (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest "official" BBC source for series 5 came prior to release [13] Mitchy Power (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide the sources for this claim? ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Finding this discussion now. Just want to weight towards renaming it into “Season 1”. I find it extremely confusing that this article is called “Series 14”. As far as I can see, the English Wikipedia is the only place where this season is called like this. Every single official source, and all third-party sources I have encountered refers to it as “Season 1”. In the meantime, I made these edits yesterday to make it a little clearer without renaming, but it got reverted, this is how I found the talk page. Whether we like it or not that the series is getting renumbered (I’m not super fond of it myself), I cannot really understand why this Wikipedia should have its own numbering system that differs from everywhere else. If this article is confusing to me who knows the series well enough, I could imagine it would be even more confusing to casual watchers and newcomers who are trying to learn more about the show. ~ nicolas (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, secondary sources are still using "Series 14", that's why. There is a rough consensus to wait it out to see how the episodes are released on home media or through official release outlets come its premiere in May. You'll understand this if you read the discussion that came before your comment, cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further note, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles was recently closed with a consensus, concerning a reformatting of season article titles, meaning this article will eventually (and sooner rather than later) be retitled to Doctor Who series 14. If there is a consensus in the future to reformat this article to "Season 1" as opposed to "Series 14", this makes the idea of retitling this article much easier in using correct disambigation - it will allow us to have Doctor Who season 1 (1963) (or 1963–64), and Doctor Who season 1 (2024). -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would humbly suggest that this season and subsequent ones be identified as "Doctor Who (2024-)", as it appears clear from the series trailed released a day or two ago that this is now a Disney+ production, with only the outline of the 1963 and 2005 storylines being retained -- the skeleton as it were -- while Disney are now to create an entirely new format. hence the radical change in the Doctor's character. the use of an "Avengers Tower" HQ for UNIT, and the fact that we already now know that the companion is to be retired after 1 season, and presumably will be replaced on a season-by-season basis by whichever teen idol Disney wish to promote from their own programming. Put simply, the UK programme is dead and gone: this is now an American production being sold back to the UK -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)#[reply]

The Doctor changing personality and companion being replaced yearly sounds like business as usual for Doctor Who. I say we follow the sources—especially in regards to article titles—rather than come to our own conclusions based on snippets from trailers. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No matter whenever is Series 14 or Season 1, you can debate on it but looks like we only got until Series 14 arrives in the UK on 10th May at 12am (evening time) in anyway. SolshineBenie (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline, and regardless, "Doctor Who (2024-)" is not a valid identification; the programme is still Doctor Who. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think since it had not been widely/officially announced in advance that the new seasons would function as a kind of "reboot" and that it would start with "season 1", most of the sources used so far refer to it as 14 and 15, but since it has started to be used officially, we will now see this outside of primary sources and the use of season 1 will become widespread in the very near future. Therefore, I think it would be better and correct to use season 1 eventually. ภץאคгöร 20:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd chip in even though this discussion has been dead for a few days. I'm doing this because I found a quote in Doctor Who magazine quoted in Den of Geek that may be of interest.

Even though it’s a time-travel show, I don’t think it looks good to have a 100^th [anniversary special], then a 60^th, then a 20^th. Let alone the fact that’ll be Season 2, or Series 15, within a 20-year span. Mind-boggling. Let’s just look forward.^[1]

— Russell T Davies

What's important is that whatever the name of this article is (which should be either "Doctor Who series 14" or "Doctor Who season 1 (2014)" as pointed out by Alex 21), it should be based on the common, not official, name. But this quote may indicate that even Russell T Davies is aware that his renumbering is not universially recognised. But obviously he's not the one to dictate what this article is called, nor is anyone person or company. --TedEdwards 20:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The upcoming series/Season's Blu-ray steelbook has been listed on Amazon as "Season One"^[2] Etron81 (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above discussions. Yes, officially it is season one, but we primarily go off the popular term. Currently, many sources still refer to it as "series 14" ([14], [15]) so the article stays such named. If in a month, two months, ..., it is commonly referred to as "season one" by non primary sources then that would potentially prompt a rename. I personally actually think it's very likely that this will happen and would support the change if appropriate, but for now most independent sources I can see say "series 14" or "the upcoming series" whereas few if any say "season one" unless directly quoting RTD. Irltoad (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was actually some agreement on waiting for the home media release; I agree with both sides, and could absolutely put together a list of secondary sources that title it Season 1. I would support this article's move. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair enough, I had forgotten about/missed this, my apologies @Etron81. Having had another look, the reasoning is sound; I'd support the move too. Thanks for the correction. Irltoad (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm new to this discussion. Why don't we change the title of the article since the official website of the show has already named it season 1? If we continue with the usual, this season is also the fortieth. Mathis Biaujout (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the common name, not the "official" one. That's why this discussion has been ongoing for a while, as we wait to see which title the sources use. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in an arbitrary break given how long this discussion is. I personally think we're going to continue to see a spread of sources use both terms, pre-/during-/post-airing, and that we should take action instead of waiting forever for that to change. Should we move the article, the title is pretty obvious, it should be to Doctor Who season 1 (2024). The question then remains what we should be moving the previous season/series articles to. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a drafted list of potential moves:

There are then two questions to consider:

1. While all "season" articles would need to be moved per WP:TVSEASON, do the "series" articles need to be moved as well? (example: Doctor Who series 1 vs. Doctor Who series 1 (2005))
2. Do we use singular years or ranges in the disambiguations? (example: Doctor Who season 1 (1963) vs. Doctor Who season 1 (1963–1964))

-- Alex_21 _TALK 06:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use the style supported by NCTV? "Doctor Who (1963 TV series) season n"? Gonnym (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that would apply since Doctor Who is considered to be one continuous series with multiple eras rather than the revival being it's own programme.

Take Law & Order for example, it was cancelled in 2010 and revived in 2020. It's considered to be one show as the revival has shared cast/characters and storylines. On the opposite end, Hawaii Five-0 (1968 TV series) and its reboot Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) which are merely related by basic premise, but the characters in each have separate backstories and the series have independent plots so they're considered separate shows. Doctor Who would fall closer to the Law & Order situation rather than the Hawaii Five-0 one. This is representative through their season numbers (Law & Order continued theirs, while Hawaii Five-0's got reset).

Although Doctor Who's also got reset in 2005, I'd assume it's because term "series" became the industry standard term for "season" in the UK by that point. You would end up with Doctor Who (1963 TV series) season 1 (1963–1964) and Doctor Who (1963 TV series) season 1 (2024) which is unnecessary disambiguation as there's not another independent series called Doctor Who from another year. If we did go this route in the way I'm assuming you're thinking would also run into the problem of whether it should be Doctor Who (2024 TV series) season 1 or Doctor Who (2005 TV series) season 1 as there has been a dispute whether this is the start of a new era. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the above. It's definitely one programme. There is no Doctor Who (1963 TV series), Doctor Who (2005 TV series) and Doctor Who (2023 TV series); there is just Doctor Who. So while I do see the merit of such a suggestion, and where it has stemmed from, I would ultimately disagree with it.

The style of suggestion titles above, for example Doctor Who season 1 (2024), is still supported by WP:NCTV - they are titled as Show season number, simply with a further disambiguation added to clarify which Doctor Who season 1 it is. This is exactly the same how we disambiguate which list of episodes we have for this programme: List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) or List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present). -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Doctor Who season 1 (2024) is supported in NCTV, there is no one example of a only a year for season articles. In my opinion, if the creators decided to soft-reset the series, then it's perfectly fine to use that a disambiguation. Gonnym (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's not under a listed example, doesn't mean that it's not valid. It follows the disambiguation guidelines of both NCTV with the initial part, and the site's disambiguation guidelines with the addition of further disambiguation at the end. I can happily list articles from around the site that use a year as a valid disambiguator. WikiProject guidelines don't need to catch every situation, especially unique ones that still confirm. WP:TVSEASON says to title it as Doctor Who season 1, we've done that, as the country/year disambiguators don't apply to this programme. However, that is an ambiguous title, given that there's two articles of the same name, and thus we apply further parenthetical disambiguation per WP:NCDAB - the year is the simplest disambiguator possible.

The creators decided to soft-reset the series in 2005 after a 16 year production gap, and yet we've managed to still keep all articles relating to the programme as a whole, not two different programmes. (A "soft reset" is such an ambiguous term, too.) I see no reason why this should change now. Neighbours doesn't have Neighbours (2024 TV series) coming after it - same case. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Series 10 was also considered a "soft reboot" ([16], [17], [18]) but didn't reset the season numbering or begin a "new era." As the notice at NCTV states "occasional exceptions may apply," this is one of them. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would also confirm with how we title Doctor Who specials (2008–2010), Doctor Who specials (2013), Doctor Who specials (2022) and Doctor Who specials (2023): Doctor Who specials (year/year range).

Expanding on my Neighbours / Neighbours (2024 TV series) example too, while it's all counted under the one original programme, it does then have the List of Neighbours characters (2024) article, given that there's a separate characters list for every year. It's not at List of Neighbours (2024 TV series) characters. This is the exact same case. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except Neighbours was officially cancelled, then officially brought back and produced by a totally different company. If we talk about examples, the Baywatch case is more interesting I think. After nine seasons, the show decided to broadcast season 10 and 11 as season 1 and 2 of "Baywatch Hawai", yet the Wikipedia page still refer to them as season 10 and 11 because that's what they are Horyzon1963 (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the actual question at hand:

• Support hyphenating the years in the 19XX seasons where needed. We already hyphenate Doctor Who specials (2008–2010), this is the same situation. Regardless, if consensus is ultimately against hyphenating, we should consider moving that article to an unhyphenated title for consistency purposes.
• Support moving the series pages. "Series" and "season" are pretty much used interchangeably, and are commonly swapped in other countries. I feel that it would help avoid confusion. This recent Entertainment Weekly article for example, references Whittaker's final season as "season 13" or this Deadline Hollywood article uses "season 7" for Smith's final season. Don't even want to mention this Radio Times article which refers to Capaldi's final season as both "series 10" and "season 10." Now that Doctor Who is a co-production with the United States where "season" is the common term, I could see the confusion growing exponentially.

With this said, I think it would be the best way to move forward. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on both points, particularly the second. It would help prevent confusion, particularly as the current "era" gets more seasons and there will be more need to explicitly distinguish the two. For the first point, I see no real downside to using year ranges and it may aid clarity, but it feels more marginal to me – I can understand arguments for either. Irltoad (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support both proposals. We should hyphenate for consistency with 2008-2010 specials. And we should move the series pages to include the year to avoid further confusion. Flabshoe1 (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the support. I think I'll give it a week for any other responses before making any drastic changes. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is a pretty big change, that I don't see highlighted on ANY page, to come here and discuss. There should be a full discussion, with tags on ALL pages that are proposed to be moved - or a wider level RFC. But Support moving the primary 2023 Christmas Special discussion to the 2023 Specials page to be consistent with other specials, lilke the 2008 Christmas Special shot as part of Series 4 (which I assume will be necessary, as it would no longer work in the Doctor Who season 1 (2024) article - otherwise it should be named Doctor Who season 1 (2023–24). Also, consistently with other articles, Doctor Who season 1 (1963–1964) should be Doctor Who season 1 (1963–64). Nfitz (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't support moving the 2023 Christmas special to the 2023 specials page. It goes against filming schedules, casting, production order, scripting etc. Regardless of whether the proposed move succeeds or fails, the episode should remain where it is. There are previous discussion on this topic here and here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The previous discussions were on not putting the broadcast year in the article name. Still, I'm not opposed to using Doctor Who season 1 (2023–24). Obviously changing the name to Doctor Who season 1 (2024) AND including a 2023 episode is not an option. Still this isn't necessarily a discussion for now. There needs to be a much wider discussion before such large (and quite likely controversial) large-scale changes. Nfitz (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It has been a full discussion, multiple times, and that's why I posted at the relevant WikiProject. The 2023 specials article concerns the 60th anniversary; the 2023 Christmas special was neither aired as part of the 60th anniversary nor produced as part of the 60th anniversary. As for consistently with other articles, which articles? Doctor Who specials (2008–2010) and List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989)? I oppose Doctor Who season 1 (2023–24), as the 2023 Christmas special is a separate special; we only list them with the respective series articles for ease of access, just like how the years in the headers at List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) show "Series 2 (2006)", not "Series 2 (2005–06)".

  Regardless, there still remains clear support for the list of moves, and I cannot see further support for moving the 2023 Christmas special. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Where was there a discussion with clear support? This one obviously doesn't mean much, as it was not listed on any articles, noticeboards, and is buried deep within an article for a season that doesn't even exist yet~ Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seconding what others have said: moving the 2023 Christmas special to the 2023 specials page simply does not make sense. Flabshoe1 (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It'll stay where it is then, I'd say the consensus there is pretty clear. If there's no other opposition, given the amount of support, I'll move and update the articles early next week; I've posted at the Who Project for further eyes on this discussion too. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't Alex. There is no rush, and the discussion here is too obscure. You need to do a much wider discussion. Nfitz (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While I do concur that there is a weak consensus here in support in the move, I can't dispute the fact that a formal RM may be necessary here. With all the recent NCTV moves, this could easily be considered controversial, and the discussion could use some fresh eyes and wider notices. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Cheers TDW, good idea, it may help consolidate the clear consensus here. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

• Doctor Who series 14 → Doctor Who season 1 (2024)
• Doctor Who series 15 → Doctor Who season 2 (2025)
• Doctor Who series 13 → Doctor Who series 13 (2021)
• Doctor Who series 12 → Doctor Who series 12 (2020)
• Doctor Who series 11 → Doctor Who series 11 (2018)
• Doctor Who series 10 → Doctor Who series 10 (2017)
• Doctor Who series 9 → Doctor Who series 9 (2015)
• Doctor Who series 8 → Doctor Who series 8 (2014)
• Doctor Who series 7 → Doctor Who series 7 (2012–2013)
• Doctor Who series 6 → Doctor Who series 6 (2011)
• Doctor Who series 5 → Doctor Who series 5 (2010)
• Doctor Who series 4 → Doctor Who series 4 (2008)
• Doctor Who series 3 → Doctor Who series 3 (2007)
• Doctor Who series 2 → Doctor Who series 2 (2006)
• Doctor Who series 1 → Doctor Who series 1 (2005)
• Doctor Who season 26 → Doctor Who season 26 (1989)
• Doctor Who season 25 → Doctor Who season 25 (1988–1989)
• Doctor Who season 24 → Doctor Who season 24 (1987)
• Doctor Who season 23 → Doctor Who season 23 (1986)
• Doctor Who season 22 → Doctor Who season 22 (1985)
• Doctor Who season 21 → Doctor Who season 21 (1984)
• Doctor Who season 20 → Doctor Who season 20 (1983)
• Doctor Who season 19 → Doctor Who season 19 (1982)
• Doctor Who season 18 → Doctor Who season 18 (1980–1981)
• Doctor Who season 17 → Doctor Who season 17 (1979–1980)
• Doctor Who season 16 → Doctor Who season 16 (1978–1979)
• Doctor Who season 15 → Doctor Who season 15 (1977–1978)
• Doctor Who season 14 → Doctor Who season 14 (1976–1977)
• Doctor Who season 13 → Doctor Who season 13 (1975–1976)
• Doctor Who season 12 → Doctor Who season 12 (1974–1975)
• Doctor Who season 11 → Doctor Who season 11 (1973–1974)
• Doctor Who season 10 → Doctor Who season 10 (1972–1973)
• Doctor Who season 9 → Doctor Who season 9 (1972)
• Doctor Who season 8 → Doctor Who season 8 (1971)
• Doctor Who season 7 → Doctor Who season 7 (1970)
• Doctor Who season 6 → Doctor Who season 6 (1968–1969)
• Doctor Who season 5 → Doctor Who season 5 (1967–1968)
• Doctor Who season 4 → Doctor Who season 4 (1966–1967)
• Doctor Who season 3 → Doctor Who season 3 (1965–1966)
• Doctor Who season 2 → Doctor Who season 2 (1964–1965)
• Doctor Who season 1 → Doctor Who season 1 (1963–1964)

– I'm starting a formal requested move here based on the discussion above. As a series that has been on the air for 60-years, Doctor Who is a rare case that is not covered by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television): there are two sets of seasons within the series that have the same name: "Doctor Who season 1" and "Doctor Who season 2. Multiple proposals have been suggested, but this seemed to be the one that gained the most support. However, a disputing editor noted that there were no notices at the top of the affected pages, and although I supported the move, I concurred with the point. Additional suggestions on possible titles are still welcome, but this should hopefully give us an idea of where we stand.

Notes: 1) Previous discussions can be read in the sections above; 2) Due to "season" and "series" being used to refer to a set of episodes that air within a given year, I have used "season" to refer to the aforementioned set of episodes and "series" to refer to the programme as a whole. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all moves as nominator. I don't normally leave a support !vote on a move I start, but I wanted to point to the reason why I supported this move in the first place. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it should stay Series 14 and 15. The numbering was only reset for Disney+. Unlike 2005, this isn't a revival. Spectritus (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, calling them Seasons 1 and 2 would just be confusing for people who aren't hardcore fans of the show. Spectritus (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter what "fans" of the show call the seasons, it's what reliable secondary sources call them, as per Wikipedia policy. This isn't a revival, but it has certainly been rescribed as a form of a reboot. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a reboot. It's still a continuation. As I said, the numbering was only reset for the Disney+ marketing to attract a new audience. Spectritus (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's still the fourteenth series of the show's 2005 revival. Spectritus (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Since the main producers of Series 14 still refer to it as such in their official website, I think it's fair to say it's the continuation of Doctor Who's revival show, therefore Series 14 (but marketed as "Season 1" by the BBC/Disney) seem the more accurate move

  https://bad-wolf.com/productions/doctor-who/ Horyzon1963 (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That article's prose is literally a copy-paste of this Wikipedia page - that is not a reliable source. If you want the official BBC stories site, it uses Season 1. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The official website of the season's producers is not reliable ? And they didn't copy-paste Wikipedia, Wikipedia copy-pasted them Horyzon1963 (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not true at all (and quite an accusation). Most of the Wikipedia lead was written before Bad Wolf updated its website (sometime after November). It's pretty clear that the latter—which is full of direct Wikipedia links—copied the former. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if they did, they didn't seem to have a problem with what was written in it, and since RTD is also using both terms, my point still stands Horyzon1963 (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, I see the logic in linking it here—but accusing editors of copyright violations (when evidence suggests otherwise) is not a great approach. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is : evidences show that both terms are valid but which one should be prioritised ? Series 14 (Season 1) or Season 1 (Series 14) ? Horyzon1963 (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  you provided a single quote from one of the writers taken out of context, and cited a source that copied wikipedia. save yourself the embarrassment of continuing to fight this losing battle Cataclyx (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't taken out of context. Russell T Davies was very much talking about New Who's 20th anniversary Horyzon1963 (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  - You're talking about "New Who's 20th anniversary" as if that was a real thing. It's not happening. 9/11 had a 20th anniversary, but there's no wikipedia page for it because nothing notable happened.

  - Doctor Who is a cultural phenomenon, and public discourse is central to its development. RTD recognizing that some people call it "season 15" doesn't canonize it.

  - "Den of Geek" is not a reliable source. Cataclyx (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what Den of Geek's reliability or 9/11's 20th anniversary has to do with anything Horyzon is saying. It's a direct quote from Davies, so it does have relevance here. Whether or not it changes anything about this article is up for debate, but there's nothing wrong with discussing it here. Nobody is advocating for a Wikipedia article about "New Who's 20th anniversary". – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  - See my previous, second point.

  - That's a hyperlink to WP:GAMESOURCES, which contains a list of credible video game news sources. Doctor Who is not a video game. (also btw your link to Horyzon's page doesn't go anywhere, just lyk)

  - You're still assuming his sources were valid. Wikipedia is not the place for fans to argue about what they think the new season should or shouldn't be labelled as; there are plenty of other websites for that.

  - "There will be no [A] in [B]... or [C]."

  A: New Who 20th anniversary

  B: Season 2

  C: Season 15

  This statement says nothing to confirm the existence of either [B] or [C]. It doesn't confirm ANY existence whatsoever. Just because you talk about something doesn't make factual. If it did, no religion would have a devil. Hell, we probably wouldn't have religion either. Cataclyx (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I know where the link goes. My point is that Den of Geek is an appropriate source for entertainment topics—not that it matters, since the quote isn't even from them.

  This entire discussion is about what the new series will be labelled. That's why we're here.

  I'm not sure what misquoting Davies is meant to prove. "Season 2, or Series 15" does exist—we know this already. The point of this discussion is about which term Wikipedia will use.

  To be clear, I don't think Davies's quote changes anything about this discussion—him using both terms doesn't exactly help us determine the common name—I just think your response to Horyzon (yes, the link works as intended) was off-topic and needlessly argumentative about the wrong point. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  - That seems like potentially bad journalistic practice, but I'll defer because I don't actually know, nor do I really care because regardless of the source's validity the article does not make a substantiated claim towards the existence of a Season 15

  - I wasn't misquoting Davies; I had no intention of quoting him to begin with

  - You're failing to see that there is no discussion, it's not up for debate.

  - The legitimacy of this entire "discussion" stems from there being evidence for both terms, yes? So, logically, if looking through the evidence for both sides and finding that there were no legitimate, reliable sources the I was deconstructing the to demonstrate the logical fallacy in using it as an appeal-to-authority argument for the possibility of a or not it exists. It's not up for debate, because there is no debate. There are no reliable sources indicating that . Cataclyx (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Quoting another outlet is standard and reasonable journalistic practice—and, while irrelevant to this discussion, series 15 does exist (and verifiably so). I'm not sure I understand what the rest of your comment is even trying to say, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks for your input. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  if it verifiably exists, where is the evidence?? Horyzon has contributed two (2) pieces of evidence; one was proven to be unreliable, and the second isn't even evidence, it's hearsay. Cataclyx (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are currently 18 references at the relevant article proving and supporting its existence. Whether or not series 15 exists is completely irrelevant to this discussion, though. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  sorry, embarrassing reveal of my autistic editing habits; i don't think wiki supports comment editing or if it does i haven't figured it out yet

  So, logically, if looking through every source for both sides revealed no evidence for one argument, wouldn't we then recognize that the claim is unsubstantiated?

  If the claim is unsubstantiated, then the "discussion" is no longer "discussion," but "discourse." Fan discourse, which is crucial to the development of Doctor Who, but fan discourse nonetheless.

  There's nothing wrong with fan discourse; I'm all for it. But that's not what Wikipedia is for. Cataclyx (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To edit your comment, you'll have to edit the page or section. I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make, though. This is a discussion about whether the title of this article should use "series 14" or "season 1" (and how that will impact other article titles). It's not "fan discourse"; it's basic Wikipedia practice. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the 20th anniversary is not happening, Russell pretty much confirmed it in the very article I sent (they directly quoted an interview from Doctor Who Magazine, but the direct source is unquotable since you would have to pay to read it).

  The point is RTD uses both terms but he also still refers to "New Who" as the 2005 revival (while the term "Season 1" could have imply the birth of a third show starting from 2023). I know secondary sources are important, but I don't think we should throw out this interesting primary source on a whim Horyzon1963 (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone who's contributed a substantial amount to this article and written a decent amount of that exact lead, no offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Given that they have used user-generated content, no, they are not a reliable source, but it's interesting that you ignored the official BBC site (since people are claiming this is only a Disney update). -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I never claimed the "Season 1" title was a Disney thing. I literally said Bad Wolf Studios published publicly on their official website that Series 14 is promoted by the BBC and Disney as Season 1 Horyzon1963 (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And I have proven it is an unreliable source. Kindly understand that. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand, but I deny your point of view. As benevolents of Wikipedia, we have no authority to say an official page posted on the official website of the official producers of Doctor Who is unreliable. We can question it at best, but we can't properly dismiss it, especially when it doesn't totally contradicts Russel T Davies' words Horyzon1963 (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh. Again, I'll repeat: by using user-generated content, it automatically violates Wikipedia's core policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. Citing a source that cites Wikpedia makes it unreliable, as Wikipedia itself is an unreliable source. Given that you've only created this account to partake in this discussion, I recommend you educate yourself on WP:RS and WP:V. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Educate yourself first and learn to read when someone posts multiples sources Russell T Davies Rules Out New Doctor Who 20th Anniversary Special | Den of Geek

  And as I said, even if they zctually didn't wrote the content of the page. They still decided to publish it on their website which seems to imply they didn't have a problem with what was written in it Horyzon1963 (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You've posted that multiple times and I've answered your questions multiple times. And it doesn't matter if they have a problem with it - by using user-generated content, it automatically violates Wikipedia's core policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You keep ignoring my second source Horyzon1963 (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I keep responding to it. Are you deliberately ignoring my replies? -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You keep responding about the Bad Wolf source. But since my original comment, I had two sources. One from the Bad Wolf Studios, and an other from RTD's interview on the Doctor Who Magazine 602. I want to hear your thoughts on the second one Horyzon1963 (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have responded to the second one. (How many times have I had to repeat this?) However, you're both ignoring my replies and deliberately repeating yourself and going in circles; this discussion is no longer constructive. Unfortunately, given your account history, I'm detecting some form of meatpuppetry. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You already replied about RTD's interview ? If that's true, then I'm sorry I didn't saw it. But then instead of ranting about it, maybe you could help advance the discussion and repeat it ? Horyzon1963 (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no need to repeat myself - I've already done that enough with you, enough to have to bold certain parts to get you to understand. I am done with this particular conversation; if you wish to get back on topic, I'll happily discuss the topic of the article moves in relation to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Cheers! -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I just looked up the older messages, you didn't once mention my second source and now you're fleeing away. Doesn't matter, I never intended to have a special chat with you. When I write, I write for everyone. Your point of view barely matters to be quite honest. Have a good day Horyzon1963 (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Scroll down. You unfortunately don't write for anyone, given your suspicious account. Happy editing! -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I write for everyone to see, nothing suspicous. Like I said, have a good day Horyzon1963 (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I just stick to the facts. And for now, the facts are this : Series 14 from a production standpoint, Season 1 from a commercial standpoint Horyzon1963 (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your personal opinion. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have a personal opinion. There's no need to feel offended by what I write Horyzon1963 (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  May I suggest that we name the page Series 14 and start the introduction with for example: "Series 14, also known as season 1 for commercial reasons.". Spectritus (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems like the way to go Horyzon1963 (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this not what's currently done? -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. I hadn't seen that. So, there's no problem. We can end the debate here. Spectritus (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, clearly we can't, because this is a formal move request and thus needs a clear consensus to be closed. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose. So, more people should see this. Spectritus (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyway, I also posted a direct quote from Russel T Davies below Horyzon1963 (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're being intentionally misleading. The quote does nothing more than demonstrate that Russel T Davies is aware that some people are still calling the Ncuti seasons "Season 14" and "15", when he has explicitly confirmed that they are soft-launching the series at Season 1. I'm not trying to gatekeep fandom, I think it's great that people want to talk about this. I encourage it. But this is not the place for it. Cataclyx (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your point of view Horyzon1963 (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's clearly not a reboot. Spectritus (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. It is obviously a continuation. There's no doubt about that. Spectritus (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I support all moves as the naming convention was broke in 2005 when they renamed the Ninth Doctor's first series as Season or Series One. Abebenjoe (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support seasons 1 and 2, series 14 and 15 per nom and above consensus, but oppose others. As TheDoctorWho points out, this sits outside the letter of WP:NCTV, and therefore the requirement of WP:TVSEASON to apply consistent disambiguators against the series title. The discussion has been very clear that the year disambiguators here are against the seasons, not the entire show, hence them coming at the end of the proposed title (which I agree with). I don't see any compelling reason to disambiguate unnecessarily across the board, especially across the 2007-21 "series" era that under this naming convention will never require disambiguation. This element of the discussion was raised above (immediately under the arbitrary break), but does not appear to have been significantly discussed after (apologies if I've missed it, it's a big discussion that I'm coming in fresh to). U-Mos (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment just to add to the "series" part for clarity, the previous comment (by @TheDoctorWho) discussed that 'series' and 'season' are often used interchangeably, including by media, so it would aid clarity. I don't dispute this point but agree with @U-Mos that more discussion is needed to determine whether the additional clarity is necessary. The "series" title already distinguishes that era, and disambiguations in hatnotes will ensure that anyone coming to "Doctor Who season 1 (2024)" can be redirected to "Doctor Who series 1" if that's what they were going for. Is that sufficient? Irltoad (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If the "series" articles aren't moved, I would say hat notes would definitely be essential to pointing readers in the correct direction. TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• While I could potentially see the logic of not applying WP:TVSEASON to the "series" articles; I don't see how we couldn't apply it to all the "season" articles simultaneously. If even two of them are moved, they should all be moved. The example given there mentions that the British version of The Apprentice had three additional seasons than the American version, but that a uniform naming scheme is applied to all seasons. Although Doctor Who is one series, I feel that it's similar enough to apply and would avoid confusing potential readers. If Doctor Who was officially commissioned for a 2026 season tomorrow when do we move the 1965–1966 season? Once the announcement is made? When a redirect is created? When the redirect points to a section on the LoE page? When an article exists? Moving them all at once would avoid the dispute down the road and avoid move wars from editors unaware of this discussion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support seasons 1&2; series 14&15 – changes clearly needed, naming convention makes sense per above discussion. Irltoad (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I support all moves listed here. (Cheers for opening this; I had a draft ready but hadn't gotten around to it.) My notes are:
  1. All titles suggested here conform with WP:NCTV, in which (for example, referencing season 1) an article is titled Doctor Who season 1, with further parenthetical disambiguation per WP:NCDAB - the year is the simplest disambiguator possible.
  2. Arguments have also been made above in which the use of series/season (see WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology) is confusable and used interchangeably in sources, meaning disambiguating years are also required for "series" articles.
  3. Disambiguating years are further required in articles that don't have a corresponding matching article (e.g. Doctor Who season 3), per WP:TVSEASON: Similar names should continue even if one version of the show has several more seasons than the other. For example, I could absolutely find secondary sources that refer to the 2005 series as Season 1.
  4. The format of the year ranges conforms with other articles within this series of articles, such as Doctor Who specials (2008–2010) and List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989); we should not mix a format such as 1963–64 with 2008–2010 (see the section headers at List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes as a similar example).
  5. Specials are not part of a respective series, we simply include them in a season article for ease and less hassle, meaning Doctor Who season 1 (2024) should be titled as such, for example, instead of Doctor Who season 1 (2023–2024).

  -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do feel that one of the best cases of the terms being used interchangeably is BBC America using "season" rather than "series" on both BBC Press ([19], [20], [21]) and AMC Press [22], [23], [24]). Although BBCA wasn't an original network, it is owned by BBC Studios/BBC Worldwide (and AMC Networks) so I imagine the Beeb would have a say in what wording is used.TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on point 3 The paragraph you quote from begins with If there are multiple shows of the same name; that is not the case here, with consensus to treat it as divisions within one show above. I dispute that this is as clear cut as you suggest. Series/season confusion has been a potential forever, and per WP:D it is handled by hatnotes, i.e. Doctor Who series 1 is the primary topic for the "series 1" form, and a hatnote guides elsewhere. I see no reason to change that.

In response to TheDoctorWho, I see no issue in moving existing season articles to disambiguated years when new season articles are created (i.e. when they enter production). I'd be interested to know if there's precedent for disambiguating articles in anticipation of future articles anywhere on Wikipedia. U-Mos (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To TDW, absolutely, especially with it now being an American co-production, those sources are more relevant than ever.

To U-Mos, it has indeed been handled by hatnotes, but now that there is a requirement to disambiguate multiple articles of the same name, it seems like only common sense to me to conform the articles to prevent any misconceptions, given the usage of both season and series in sources for the 2005-2021 era. As for disambiguating articles in anticipation of future articles, I'm not sure if it's a common precedent, but I recently moved Empire of Death (Doctor Who novel) in anticipation for Empire of Death (Doctor Who episode), which I feel is very relevant to this discussion. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an article you moved yourself without discussion. Notwithstanding that I don't think that needed to be enacted yet, there's a big difference between that and the proposed move of Doctor Who season 26, in anticipation of another season by that name maybe happening in perhaps 25-40 years time. The only potential argument for that is WP:TVSEASON, but again that covers disambiguation of whole shows in line with their article titles, not general disambiguation against season titles. I can see how there's a potential messiness when the 2026 season and further are announced, but I don't think going to such extremes to manage future minor inconveniences is necessary.

I'm even more unconvinced by the idea that disambiguated series/season article titles are fulfilling a requirement for more disambiguation than has been needed in previous years. There is nothing about levels of confusion at WP:D; if there's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - and as the more likely confusion is people searching for the 2005 series as "season 1", not searching for the 1963 or 2024 seasons as "series 1", there's surely no disputing that the 2005-21 articles are the primary topics for those names - then we use hatnotes. The solution is already implemented. U-Mos (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on above discussions, I am changing my vote to support all moves, although that support is weaker for the series moves. I do think it is on balance best to disambiguate those by year, but it would also be sufficient without. I think moving all seasons makes sense, partly just for consistency but also to avoid unnecessary discussion down the line. I don't see any harm in doing so. Irltoad (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi! Hello english users, I'm a french user and I want to help you with this debate if it's possible.

  You see, since Russell T. Davies announced the 'reset' or 'reboot' of season, on the french side of Wikipedia, we have changed and created new pages about this new era of the show. If you want to see, here's the page 'List of Doctor who Episodes (2023-present)' and all the new season are numbered from scratch, as you can see with 'Season 1 of Doctor Who, third series' and 'Season 2 of Doctor Who, third series'.

  So, I just wanted to help you with this decision because I know it's a complicated choice to do but unfortunately, when Series 1 in 2005 was released, people wanted it to be called Season 27. I was thinking, maybe it could be a good thing to make a third page for this new era of Doctor Who, because new Whovians will came in the community after seeing it on Disney+ AS Season 1 and not Series 14 and maybe they will be destabilized by seeing Series 14 and not Season 1.

  Again, it's just an opinion I'm exposing and I'm not forcing you to do it, I've just wanted to show you what we did on the French side as an initiative move but it's up to you to do it or not.

  Thanks for those who read me and I hope my english was understandable. Hope it will helps you lot. Jules71100 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a #6 note to my !vote, there were arguments that an article such as Doctor Who season 1 (2024) does not conform with WP:NCTV. I maintain it does, exactly the same way that List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) or List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) does. The primary article title (Doctor Who season 1, List of Doctor Who episodes, or List of The Simpsons episodes) follows all guidelines of the naming convention, and then given that there are multiple articles by those base titles, we then disambiguate it further with the addition of years or seasons. The format of the latter articles aren't listed at WP:NCTV#List articles, and yet have existed with a clear consensus; this is simply another identical case. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I Support all moves even as an editor and fan familiar with the situation these articles are becoming hard to find. When all marketing lists "series 14" as season 1, anyone searching for information about the 2024 Season 1 is going to be met with headaches and confusion. It's about time that's fixed. These moves help across the board. Mitchy Power (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support all moves. The new series is marketed as Season 1, necessitating a year marker for the 1963 vs 2024 season. Additionally, the distinction between "series" and "season" is very unclear to the common audience, and adding a year marker for the 2005 season will add some much-needed clarity. Flabshoe1 (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support all moves as the new series is being universally called season 1 now. The wikipedia page should surely follow what people are calling it and the dates will help as naming conventions for doctor who series are very complicated and you need to distinct between this season 1 and the season 1 of classic who Cal3000000 (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Hello english users, I'm a french user and I want to help you with this debate if it's possible.

You see, since Russell T. Davies announced the 'reset' or 'reboot' of season, on the french side of Wikipedia, we have changed and created new pages about this new era of the show. If you want to see, here's the page 'List of Doctor who Episodes (2023-present)' and all the new season are numbered from scratch, as you can see with 'Season 1 of Doctor Who, third series' and 'Season 2 of Doctor Who, third series'.

So, I just wanted to help you with this decision because I know it's a complicated choice to do but unfortunately, when Series 1 in 2005 was released, people wanted it to be called Season 27. I was thinking, maybe it could be a good thing to make a third page for this new era of Doctor Who, because new Whovians will came in the community after seeing it on Disney+ AS Season 1 and not Series 14 and maybe they will be destabilized by seeing Series 14 and not Season 1.

Again, it's just an opinion I'm exposing and I'm not forcing you to do it, I've just wanted to show you what we did on the French side as an initiative move but it's up to you to do it or not.

Thanks for those who read me and I hope my english was understandable. Hope it will helps you lot. Jules71100 (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, the links didn't works

List of Doctor Who Episodes (2023-present):

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_%C3%A9pisodes_de_Doctor_Who_(depuis_2023)

Season 1 of Doctor Who, third series:

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saison_1_de_Doctor_Who,_troisi%C3%A8me_s%C3%A9rie

Season 2 of Doctor Who, third series

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saison_2_de_Doctor_Who,_troisi%C3%A8me_s%C3%A9rie Jules71100 (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for for these, but you seem to have posted them twice [25][26]? While there's support for the page moves, we definitely don't need List of Doctor Who episodes (2023–present), as this would not conform with MOS:TVSPLIT and Wikipedia:Article splitting (television); future episodes can remain at List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present). -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry for the mistake. But actually, if RTD himself said that the new season is a reboot, then it's no longer Series 14 from Doctor Who (2005) but Season 1 from Doctor Who (2023) Jules71100 (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jules71100 It's not a reboot. They just reset the numbering for marketing purposes. Spectritus (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RTD said it himself, go and see yourself

https://coveredgeekly.com/entertainment/tv/russell-t-davies-confirms-new-doctor-who-reboot-plans/ Jules71100 (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! RTD, as well as Bad Wolf Studios, also made several comments conflicting with this claim, or making it at least ambiguous. Series 14 also still remains the most commonly term when referring to the series in media articles. And just a few days ago, Ncuti Gata, Millie Gibson and RTD made several interviews in a row. Most of these were posted on Youtube by the various interviewers as either "Series 14" or "the new season". Horyzon1963 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jules71100 If you believe that, you don't know the show very well. If it was a reboot, Ncuti Gatwa would be the 1st Doctor not the 15th and he wouldn't have bigenerated from David Tennant. Also, Jemma Redgrave and Bonnie Langford wouldn't be in it. Etc. Spectritus (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I was originally going to abstain, because I don't feel strongly either way, but there's a pretty clear consensus already so I might as well say something before this wraps up. I'm not sure I agree that "Season 1" is the common name for this article. I did some quick searching for articles published over the last month, and they still seem fairly split between "Season 1" and "Series 14", seemingly with a preference for the latter. (I'm sure I missed some sources, and included a few that aren't considered reliable, but I think the point stands regardless.)

1 vs. 14

Season 1	Series 14	Both
Bleeding Cool Deadline GamesRadar+ Gizmodo Inverse Looper Men's Journal Metacritic Nerdist RogerEbert.com Rotten Tomatoes TheWrap Yardbarker and the BBC, of course	The A.V. Club Comic Book Resources Cosmopolitan Daily Telegraph Den of Geek Destructoid Dexerto Digital Spy Evening Standard FandomWire Film Stories Forbes The Guardian The Independent The Mary Sue Mashable The New York Times Parade Radio Times The Scotsman Screen Rant ShortList Telly Visions TV Fanatic Variety Virgin Radio UK	Attitude (1, 14) CinemaBlend (1, 14) Collider (1, 14) /Film The Hollywood Reporter (1, 14) IGN (1, 14) Inverse Loud and Clear (1, 14) PinkNews (1, 14) TVLine

We might still see all publications move towards "Season 1" entirely (especially after this weekend) but I see no reason to rush before then—I think the current titles are the most appropriate ones, and hatnotes are entirely sufficient for the time being. That being said, if consensus continues to support the move, I think U-Mos makes a good point regarding whether all of these need moving, and I agree with Alex about basically everything else. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting list of sources, using which ones. What jumps out at me, is that there's very few national and local papers using Season 1 - the ones above say 14. National papers like The Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, Scotsman - and major local papers like the New York Times and the Evening Standard. I was willing to buy into this, but now I'm not so sure. Nfitz (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The main producers of the show still refer to it as "series 14/marketed as season 1" (source) . Russell T Davies actually uses both terms while making allusion to the 20th anniversary of "New Who" therefore confirming the new seasons belong to the 2005's revival (source). I think it's fair to say it is actually both season 1 and series 14, so the wisest option would be rename the page "Series 14 (season 1)". It's still produced and thought by the big heads of the show as the fourteenth series of NuWho but promoted by the BBC and Disney as season 1. Horyzon1963 (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The "main producers", as the BBC, refer to it as Season 1, and secondary sources use both. Your initial source, as explained above, is invalid. The title "Series 14 (season 1)" does not conform to any naming conventions of Wikipedia; kindly read them. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The "main producers" factually are Bad Wolf Studios, and they are the source of the article I sent. Your own personal opinion about the statements of the production team is therefore irrelevant Horyzon1963 (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What is relevant is whether or not Wikipedia is willing to take this fact into account. Horyzon1963 (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I also sent an other source directly quoting Russell T Davies, I would like to hear what you have to say on that Horyzon1963 (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not a reliable source, as it uses user-generated content, and thus fails WP:USERGEN. Unreliable sources cannot be taken into account.

  And yes, Davies used both in the second source: yet another example that both names are the common name at this point. I would like to hear what you have to say on the BBC titling it Season 1. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a very poor understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines since the rules about generated-content apply to websites "whose content is largely based on user-generated content", which is usually not the case for Bad Wolf Studios; and those websites include "personal websites, forums, fansites, wikis, social medias or other collaboratively created website" which once again doesn't apply to the official website of the producers of Series 14.

  As for your question about BBC tittling it Season 1 and given the validity of my two sources, then it seems pretty clear that while Season 1 is the promoted term from a commercial standpoint, the season has been produced as a series of the revival show. Therefore, it is factually both. Only time will tell for sure which term will pass to posterity. But for now, there's no need to change the name of the page. Horyzon1963 (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The BW page in question is clearly based solely or largely from this Wikipedia page and thus is user generated. That's surely not difficult to grasp. Its presence on the website does not even necessarily reflect the idea that BW internally refers to it as 'series 14' as whoever is in charge of web development is likely unrelated to the Doctor Who production team. In this case, for example, the Bad Wolf page clearly states it was designed by design dough. Their Terms and Conditions also state that they "cannot guarantee that all product information is error free". As has been said above, the website is at best weak evidence that both names are common use, at worst unusable due to lack of verifiability. It does not suggest that it has "been produced as a series of the revival show" – your own argument rests on the fact that it is produced by an entirely different production company.

  On your second point, RTD has also stated "we're calling it season one". Note "we". I am unconvinced by your argument that there is a difference between how it is referred in promotion vs commercial release, but even if that is the case, as the commercial side is the public-facing one, that is surely the more relevant of the two? I can see an argument for waiting to see which term is commonly used, but I'm not sure you're making a great case for it. Irltoad (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I explained above, the very nature of the Bad Wolf website doesn't apply to the user-generated rule as it currently exists.

  The fact that some people may be unconvinced is one thing, but only the facts matter, and numerous facts proved that this is very much a continuation of the revival show, promoted as season 1. Meaning there is factual evidence of some duality that is yet to be dealt with officially, I'm not making any case, this is just how things are at the moment. And at the moment, based on what I saw, I think the page should remain as it is Horyzon1963 (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  my original proposition was to put the two terms next to each other in the title, something like Series 14 (season 1) or Season 1 (series 14). But apparently such a title would not respect the current rules of Wikipedia Horyzon1963 (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe not explicitly in WP:USERGEN, but the source's validity is absolutely voided by WP:CIRCULAR. I also find it interesting that you refute my points as apparently opinion-based by saying that only the facts matter and within the same paragraph talk about what you "think", "based on what [you] saw". I think you are making broad assumptions based on dubious 'facts'. You also did not address any of the rest of my argument past it not fitting USERGEN to the letter.

  I would also draw your attention to WP:PRIMARY – do not put undue weight on [primary sources] – and WP:COMMONNAME which negates your argument regardless of the sources verifiability as you are arguing about the official, not common name. As others have suggested, there is certainly an argument for 'season 1' not being the common name yet which could potentially be a reasonable basis for opposition, but I am failing to see any strength in your argument.

  "Series 14 (season 1)" would be hugely unclear and yes, it would not fit WP naming conventions. If the proposed renaming goes ahead, it would be clarified by the year and would likely include explicit mention discussion of the change in names. Irltoad (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Once again the WP:Circular doesn't fit either since my source isn't actually a Wikipedia article. The official production website copy-pasted, which is quite different. Just like Alex before, it's very important to not use the Wikipedia rules in misleading ways. The same goes for WB:Primary since all the informations ever made about series 14/1 ARE primary sources for now anyway. Your argument for WP:Commonname is valid though, at the end of the day, it all comes down to this : will people refer and talk about the upcoming episodes as Season 1 or Series 14 ? Horyzon1963 (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  From WP:CIRCULAR: "Also, do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources". It fits it to the letter. And no, the sources are not solely primary – there are many many secondary sources (i.e. news articles) about it. Irltoad (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone here already made a list of the news articles talking about series 14 so I didn't felt the need to use it as an argument. But basically, most of the big news articles are referring to the new season as "Series 14".

  As for the WP:CIRCULAR, stil doesn't fit. It's the official website who not only backs up the informations wrote on Wikipedia, but actively promote it (24) Media posts by Bad Wolf (@BadWolf_TV) / X (twitter.com). It's not dubious Horyzon1963 (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't matter. Forked Wikipedia content. Unreliable. Drop the stick. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:MIRROR: "Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are publications that mirror (copy exactly) or fork (copy, but change parts of the material of) Wikipedia." You yourself said the website copy-pasted from here; I'm genuinely perplexed as to how it is not a mirror, or if you concede that it is then how does it not fit WP:CIRCULAR?

  I agree that the list of sources posted by another editor is signficant and worth attention. Frankly, your insistence on this poorly founded argument is distracting from it. Irltoad (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's time you read WP:DROPTHESTICK. Multiple editors have said it's not reliable because it's a copy of Wikipedia. The website even says it's not reliable. Move on from your source. You are unaware of Wikipedia's rules - you created your account today, unless this is a second account separate from a main one? -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No this is my first time here, but you're twisting these rules since the beginning of this conversation, So I seriously don't even know for sure if I'm the more clueless Horyzon1963 (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't know what you're talking about. Respect the editors who cite the rules they've known and quoted for ten years after hundreds of thousands of edits. You're so very clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I said, you edit a lot, doesn't mean much aside from that. I respect everyone but you quote rules who never match the point you're trying to make. Not trying to be offensive Horyzon1963 (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Learn the rules. Don't quote what you don't know. To the editor who closes this discussion, this is a very clear case of WP:NOTHERE; note that when regarding the above !vote. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will let the editors do their work and respect their decision. I just hope they manage to see my intentions were quite sincere Horyzon1963 (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As for myself, I never quoted any rules I didn't know because...well I just never quoted any rules at all. I'm merely replying to your own quotations Horyzon1963 (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As for the WP:NOTHERE, you're still wrong, check my work on the french wikipedia Horyzon1963 (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Completely different server, different policies. This you? Created an account two days ago. WP:NOTHERE. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  yes Horyzon1963 (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say the rules were the same, but you claimed I was not here to build an encyclopedia, which is not true Horyzon1963 (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, you have joined this server to argue, not to build an encyclopedia. Drop the stick. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is litterally a page to talk. What should I create here exactly ? I'm currently working on the french page of the Seventh Doctor though, false allegations will not be tolerated Horyzon1963 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm done here. You refuse to get the point. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Have a good day ! Horyzon1963 (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I found an other article from the same official website, this time not taken from Wikipedia. Nothing particularly useful for the numbering, but the article does switch between a "season" and a "series"

  The Tardis is set to land on 11th May on BBC Iplayer at midnight with a double bill of out of this world episodes before arriving on BBC One on Saturday night | Bad Wolf (bad-wolf.com) Horyzon1963 (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unreliable. Website. (For the hundredth time.) Are you trying to promote this site? -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For the last time, the Bad Wolf Studios is not an unreliable website, they co-produce the show along with the BBC Horyzon1963 (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can't understand the point, refuses to listen and learn, here solely to be argumentative. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're the one trying to argue since the beginning of this conversation. I'm just sending stuff. If you want to dismiss official articles, that's your problem, but then we should dismiss all primary sources available, including the BBC and Disney Horyzon1963 (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we do dismiss primary sources, then there's no debate : it's Series 14. But I do think we should take into account what the official sources have to say, their common points and maybe their contradictions Horyzon1963 (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No one is suggesting a total dismissal of primary sources, only that they should not be given undue weight. Irltoad (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  my brother in christ. If you're point is so valid, go find a third source. We'll wait. Cataclyx (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...your. Forgive my stupidities, it's late for me. Cataclyx (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Series" and "season" are often used interchangeably which is part of the reason for renaming some of the listed articles. This has been discussed plenty previously. Irltoad (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused why Doctor Who season 12 → Doctor Who season 12 (1974–1975) with only a single 1974 episode during Christmas. But Doctor Who series 14 → Doctor Who season 1 (2024) with also a single 2023 episode during Christmas. There needs to be consistency here. Doctor Who series 7 → Doctor Who series 7 (2012–2013) is in the same boat, as it includes an episode in 2011. See also Season 25. Perhaps this is overcooked? Also, why would one use (1963–1964)? At Wikipedia the norm would be to not repeat the century. So it would have to be Doctor Who season 1 (1963–64) not Doctor Who season 1 (1963–1964). Nfitz (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Robot "Part One" was the official start to season 12, whereas "The Church on Ruby Road" is a supplementary special that precedes series 14. The episodes lists follow the same format, as Alex mentioned above. As for years: the general preference is to include the full year per MOS:DATERANGE; there are exceptions, but the full year would be more consistent here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't quite believe that we're back to this. As Rhain said: in your season 12 example, the episode that aired over the Christmas holiday was the actual season premiere. "The Church on Ruby Road" is not the season premiere of series 14, "Space Babies" will be. Hence why 1974 would be included in the season 12 article, but 2023 wouldn't be included in the season 1 article. What part of that is confusing? We've brought up this point multiple times yet you continue to come back to it. "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" works the same way at series 7, "Asylum of the Daleks" is the series premiere. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, it's been explained a multitude of times. Specials are listed in season articles for the sake of convenience, but are not aired as part of the season. List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes (again) is the perfect example of being consistent when required to use the full date range. MOS:DATERANGE actually prefers the 1963–1964 format as opposed to the 1963–64 format - the exact quote is For consistency, avoid abbreviated year ranges when they would be used alongside non-abbreviated ranges within an article (or related pages, if in titles). I wonder if we'll need to explain this again before the discussion ends... -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider how List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) is listed as 1963–1989, and yet includes a 1996 special. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't noticed that error before. Someone should go fix that! Nfitz (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is we can't include the 1996 TV Movie in List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), technically it doesn't belong to the classic show either but there's not much alternative really. Horyzon1963 (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's included on the 1963–1989 list for convenience and navigation, but it's technically not an "episode" so I think the title is correct to exclude it. Not a perfect comparison, but it's similar to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) including The Simpsons Movie as a separate section despite the fact that it's not a season. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no error, as already explained, and it was the agreed-upon title when the article was created. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all After further consideration, in no small part due to Rhain's collection of sources, I now believe the moves are premature. Season 1 needs to be the clear WP:COMMONNAME for the move to take place, and we're not quite there yet. I'd be very surprised if the common name does not shift by the end of the year, but WP:CRYSTALBALL. If/when the move take place, I remain in favour of the format proposed here, but with minimal disambiguation, i.e. moving only the 2024 series and onwards pages, and their classic series equivalents. U-Mos (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note that with this edit, you technically have two !votes in this requested move, as the "oppose" remains unstricken in your original !vote and you've listed another "oppose" here. Could this please be rectified into one? -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @U-Mos Can I please ask you again to fix this? You still have two active !votes in this discussion; that is not standard RM procedure. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all moves. While the case for S14/S15 is mixed, I think it's fine to use 1/2 and enough sources support that (even if not totally unanimously). Also, I don't want to speak for opposers, but I'm mostly seeing an argument in the opposers that perhaps Doctor Who series 14 should move to Doctor Who season 14 (2024) and Doctor Who series 15 move to Doctor Who season 15 (2025). That should be the compromise, fallback option IMO; it's clear that we absolutely need years now to keep this straight and unambiguous, so those should be added no matter what. SnowFire (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As one of opposers, I couldn't disagree more. If "14" and "15" remain, they should follow "series", not "season", for consistency—in which case I don't think further disambiguation is necessary; the hatnotes work as intended. I believe U-Mos's point is the same: that minimal disambiguation is preferred. I don't think I've seen any arguments that suggest those particular moves. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not very fussed about series vs. season, but my understanding is that the BBC has called it a "season", but if an argument can be made for "series" it's not a big deal. Anyway, the use of "Season" vs. "Series" to disambiguate the old articles was always borderline, since the two are basically synonyms. Even if you think it should be Series 14 and Series 15, surely you agree that there does indeed exist confusion on the matter and alternate naming schemes. (Like, if you aren't confused, great, but others are.) Year is the strongest disambiguator in this case, and should be added IMO regardless of where the 2024 & 2025 sets-of-episodes end up landing. SnowFire (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Simply put, it would be inconsistent to go from "series 13" to "season 14". If we continue the numbering scheme, we ought to continue the prefix: if we use "14" and "15", it should be "series"; if we reset to "1" and "2", "season" is fine.

  And sure, I can acknowledge that there might be confusion—that's why we use hatnotes. Unless two articles have the same name, I see no reason to add additional disambiguation. There is only one "Doctor Who series 13"; if the reader is looking for season 13, the hatnote will take them there. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not really our call to make past a certain point. Sometimes reality is inconsistent, and we're stuck complaining to the BBC. See List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes where the creators just started making up random new names for the seasons after a certain point because they thought it was funny. SnowFire (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, that is our call: per WP:TVSEASON, A consistent naming scheme should be used for all season articles of a TV show: if one season is named something special, this should be noted through redirects and in the article's WP:LEAD, but the article should be named in the same fashion as the other season pages. It appears ATHF seasons 8–11 were incorrectly titled; I've moved them. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Would really have preferred that you discuss this first to avoid the antipattern of people being afraid to mention counterexamples for fear of, well, exactly this. This should have gone through a RM, and ideally a RM after this one has closed, because it's not clear that this approach has consensus. I'm not saying that those articles should necessarily stay where they were but this guideline was known about and obviously considered an exception, and people familiar with the franchise should have weighed in. SnowFire (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The guideline wouldn't have been written if it didn't have consensus. The ATHF seasons are a textbook example of what it is referring to. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Rhain is correct. That wasn't a counterexample, that was an incorrect example in direct violation of the MoS. If the guideline was known and considered an exception, is there a linkable discussion that supports that claim and shows consensus? If not, then they were just incorrectly named articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyway, going back to the subject of this RM, while I clearly think that you're interpreting that particular line of TVSEASON too strictly, the current RM proposal isn't even against it anyway. We already had an "inconsistent" approach with the Season / Series split on 1989 vs. 2005 - for good and proper reasons, mind (i.e. in not calling Doctor Who series 1 "Season 27"). If anything, this proposed new approach is more consistent, because we're basically saying that the Wikipedia-relevant identifier is the year and adding it. SnowFire (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's any more consistent than the current approach. It's just adding needless disambiguation to the title when a hatnote already does the job. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This season is marketed and released as its own thing on both iPlayer and Disney+, but the common name is not hammered out fully yet, and if it does turn out that the common name is Season 1 (likely after the season finishes). then it can be changed. Until then, oppose per WP:CRYSTALBALL. MacDoesWiki (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MacDoesWiki Could you please provide the particular quote of CRYSTALBALL that these moves would not conform to? -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. U-Mos (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been reliably sourced, and nothing here in this discussion has been predicted. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both myself and MacDoesWiki have clearly argued our view that this move presumes a future change in the common name of the current series. U-Mos (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that, but that is also a content policy, not a titling policy. This is simply a matter of conformity, not a prediction of future events. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titling policy sits within content policy. U-Mos (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. The latter part of my last comment still applies. Nobody is assuming future seasons will happen, it's simple conformity. The two can be exclusive. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the parentheses, yes. Regarding the move from series 14 to season 1 etc., that is absolutely a common name matter. While editors are of course welcome to disagree, it's an entirely valid argument that we should wait until the common name is more definite rather than assuming the current direction of travel will continue. U-Mos (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely believe both exist as the common name. Sources will continue to use Series 14, but also use Season 1 adjacently to an equal level of importance, and there's also sources cited above that actively use both within the same website. I don't expect that to ever change. The question is which one Wikipedia should use. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support all moves. ภץאคгöร 22:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support all moves As much as we might like it not to be, "Season 1" is clearly the official name being used by all official sources, and so we should follow that. To not do so risks readers not being able to find the information they're looking for about this show. 146.200.163.29 (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "official name" isn't the most important element here; we prioritise common names used by reliable sources. If that common name is "season 1", then that's fine, but it's a little more nuanced than just following the "official" title. I don't think readers are at risk of not finding the correct information, since we have hatnotes to direct them. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all moves Zeldamaster702 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support all moves. This is nuts, and a vivid reminder of why Doctor Who is such a uniquely tedious topic to try to edit on here. There is plainly an official schism in the production history. To deny that has the practical effect of insisting that only editors fluent in the bizarro-world writing style of mandated by talk page bureaucrats are welcome. It's petty and stupid, and it's embarrassing that it isn't already changed. El Sandifer (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is really trying to deny that there has been an official change in the production, though. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all moves --Etron81 (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose only that this may be too soon to tell. It might be better to wait until the end of this current season to re-evaluate the sources like Rhain has done and see how it goes. --Masem (t) 01:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It feels like this discussion is just a little premature. Similarly to editors on the Yakuza article choosing to wait and see what becomes the common name given time, even though official branding had changed to Like a Dragon, I feel like it's just impossible to know whether Season 1 or Series 14 will be the one to stick as of now. 07JonesJ (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all it is too soon to discern what the series will be referred to in the future and there is WP:NODEADLINE to change, there is no problem with keeping current naming convention for a few series as both are equally common names, it will take time to be able to gauge this WP:CRYSTALBALL case. Happily888 (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Doctor Who on BBC.ko.uk: Doctor Who (1963–1996) [27]; Doctor Who (2005–2022) [28]; Doctor Who New series [29]. I think separation is quite clear. – Vilnisr ^{T | C} 08:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovedoctorwhoandninjago, kindly do not edit war. If you disagree with a revert, you should discuss on a talk page (as per WP:BRD). You are correct that Chibnall took over in 2017, but Moffat took over in 2009 and Davies started in 2004 (or earlier). Despite that they are said to have begun in 2010 and 2005 respectively. In addition, Chris Chibnall's page states he was showrunner from 2018. It does not aid understanding to state he was showrunner from 2017. His first series as showrunner was 2018, which is what is relevant. A short scene at the end of an episode does not make it so, and saying '2017' does nothing to aid understanding. Irltoad (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC state that Chibnall took over as show runner in 2017 and we report what the sources say: [30]. The role did not start with the airing of the 2018 series. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then there needs to be consistency between and within articles, and the same goes for Moffat (2009 not 2010) and Davies (2004 not 2005; 2022 not 2023; leaving 2009 not 2010) as that is the year they started as showrunner. My understanding, however, is that the dates are for the series that they were showrunner for, rather than the exact date they started and ended the role, in the same way that Jodie Whittaker is referred to as having played the Doctor until 2022, despite finishing filming in 2021. Irltoad (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just as each of the Doctor articles list their tenure dates as their first regular episode, not their first guest appearance (i.e. Fifteenth is the 2023 Christmas special, not The Giggle), the same applies for showrunners - 2018 is correct for Chibnall. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is, IMO, too simplistic and indefensible given that the sources say otherwise. If you wish to say that Chibnall was the showrunner for the series which aired from 2018, you should explicitly state that. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As already said, RTD has always been listed as 2005–2010 (as opposed to 2004–2009), Moffat as 2010–2017 (as opposed to 2009–2016), Chibnall as 2018–2022 (as opposed to 2018–2021), and RTD again from 2023– (as opposed to 2021–). This conforms with the tenure for the fifteenth Doctors thus far as well. Why the concern over the 2017/2018 year, and not the fact that his time as showrunner also ended in 2021? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are talking at crossed-purposes. The table you are now citing makes it clear those are transmission dates, and is fine. I was responding, as an uninvolved editor, to the "open letter" from Irltoad to Ilovedoctorwhoandninjago about the latter changing the 2018 to 2017 in Davies also reportedly asked Chris Chibnall, who had served as showrunner from 2018 to 2022, to return as a writer, but this offer was declined. Language is important; 2017 is absolutely correct per the BBC source in the context of that sentence, but also it would be absolutely fine to use the 2018 date if it was made clear he had served as showrunner in the 2018 to 2022 series. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to point out with that table, is that all those actors (bar the first) appeared before the dates listed under "Original start" in their first guest appearance, and then that first guest appearance is listed as the broadcast of their first full episode (for example, Capaldi was the Doctor since December 2013, but is listed as August 2014). In the same manner for showrunners, Chibnall (at this and his own biographical article) is also listed by the date of his first main series. I would recommend taking a look at the related articles to see identical examples of the daterange for Chibnall's (or any other's) showrunner run. To be more specific: we list when they were first credited in the role; see how RTD is listed as 2023 in the Doctor Who infobox, yet he was first announced in 2021. Chibnall was firsted credited within the program as the showrunner in 2018. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it wouldn't at all hurt to clarify the phrase with something along the lines of what you suggested (or eg. replace it with "for series 11 to 13"). I do take issue with saying "2017" though, particularly in a stand-alone sentence in a tangentially related article. When it is said that he took over in 2017 it's fairly clear exactly what is meant, but using the date range can suggest that it refers to the dates of the series, particularly as this is the way it is used for other showrunners and actors. When someone says "Whittaker played the Doctor from 2018 until 2022" it is implied that this refers to the years she was credited as the Doctor, rather than the years she filmed the character. As far as I'm concerned, the same implicit understanding should be applied to showrunners' tenures or it just risks confusion. Irltoad (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Space Babies (draft)
2. The Devil's Chord (draft)
3. Boom (Doctor Who) (draft)
4. 73 Yards (draft)
5. Dot and Bubble (draft)
6. Rogue (Doctor Who) (draft)
7. The Legend of Ruby Sunday (draft)
8. Empire of Death (Doctor Who episode) (draft)

-- Alex_21 _TALK 01:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the continued existance of Empire of Death, the finale will likely end up at Empire of Death (Doctor Who episode) per WP:NCEPISODE, while the former article will need to be moved to Empire of Death (Doctor Who novel), similar to Thin Ice (Doctor Who episode) and Thin Ice (Doctor Who audio). -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)  Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should pre-existing information be filled in on these drafts? E.g. current casting announcements? I notice the transmission dates are already listed on the articles for instance Estaphel (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I've only just created the bare bones for that sort of thing, so please do. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of sending the empire of death novel to AFD assuming it gets deleted the draft should be moved to Empire of Death (Doctor Who)? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21 Does this really need to be repeated again in the series 14 article - when it's literally pasted, word-by-word, in the previous specials article? The information is surely less relevant in this one; the studio move was marked with filming for the specials, not with series 14. LukeLB (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's the first regular season to film there. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Luke. Simply write a new, short, sentence. Nfitz (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a short sentence. Thank you for your opposition; it always makes for great debate. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something still isn't scanning right. The specials article implies the move happened before they started filming in 2022. The Series 14 article implies the move was during or after the 2023 filming. If the move was back in early 2022 (when were the production, effects, etc. offices moved?), then surely there's no need to even mention it in this article Nfitz (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is relevant as it is the first full series produced there, as Alex mentioned previously. It could potentially be clearer though – how about something along the lines of Filming began in December 2022 and concluded in July 2023. It was the first series to be produced at Wolf Studios Wales following a move from Roath Lock Studios [in 2022/for the 2023 Specials].? It's a bit longer but provides further clarity. Irltoad (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the above change, ending it along the lines of following the move from Roath Lock Studios for the preceding anniversary specials? -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That works, but doesn't clarify the other article. When did they move? Nfitz (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow what needs further clarification. As Doctor Who specials (2023) § Production says, pre-production began at Bad Wolf Studios in March 2022, and there are sources announcing the move in 2021. Irltoad (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it misleading that the text refers to the "introduction" of Millie Gibson, but phrases Ncuti Gatwa as "stars in." This is misleading because it implies this in actress Gibson's first role. It is not her first role. She was a much-loved character in Coronation Street for many years. The text should be changed to read "Also co-stars Millie Gibson as..." Mhk-who (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context: The Fifteenth Doctor was introduced in "The Giggle" (2023)...The series also introduces Millie Gibson as the Doctor's newest companion, Ruby Sunday. DonQuixote (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase does not mean the series introduces Gibson to the world, but to the show. It's a very commonly used phrase – see, for example Doctor Who series 11: The series introduces Jodie Whittaker as the Thirteenth Doctor and The series also introduces Bradley Walsh, Tosin Cole, and Mandip Gill as the Doctor's newest travelling companions. Irltoad (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It is consistent with phrasing in other new character elements. However, being consistent doesn't make it correct. In the film industry the use of the word "introduce" means the audience is seeming the actor for the very first time and is generally not applied to a new character. But as it is consistently used to mean actor/character hear, I will accept it. Mhk-who (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sourcing to look out for, on how Disney+ lists "The Church on Ruby Road" as Episode 1, and "Space Babies" as Episode 2. The former is also true on the BBC stories site, but not yet the latter. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]