Jump to content

Talk:Doctor Who series 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mitchy Power (talk | contribs) at 11:14, 1 December 2023 (→RFC: Title of this article, and following seasons). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Yasmin Finney as new Rose

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]

Ncuti Gatwa announced as "Fourteenth Doctor"

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]

Episode 2 in production blocks

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]

Article title change?

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]

RFC: Title of this article, and following seasons

Per WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology, the previous seasons/series of Doctor Who have been titled "Season #" for the classic era, and "Series #" for the revived era, noting the difference from when the programme moved from Season 26 to Series 1 upon the 2005 revival. This had lead up to Series 13 in 2021. According to interviews with the showrunner, as well as entries on the official Doctor Who websites, the numbering system is to be reset, to define a new "era". That is, what has previous been referred to as Series 14, will now be referred to as Season 1.

The questions are:

  1. Should this article be retitled to reflect this change to "Season 1", or should it remain at its "Series 14" title?
  2. If the article should be renamed, what should it be renamed to? (This is given that Doctor Who (season 1) already exists, representing the 1963–64 season, and Doctor Who (series 1) exists, representing the 2005 series.)
  3. Upon this renaming, should (and thus, what) should the previous seasons be renamed to?

Note that if this article title is changed, this should reflect upon the following entries within the programme. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Doctor Who (season 1, 2024) is a valid option. However, I don't think a change should be made until the first episode of the season is shown and added to BBC iPlayer under "season 1", if that is what occurs. (See Talk:Waterloo Road (TV series)#Series re-renumbering, March 2023 for an example of how a series designation can potentially bounce about even after broadcast.) I also think it's worth discussing if we should go against UK vs. US convention and use "season" over "series" just because Russell T Davies says so. Is there any precedent for doing so? U-Mos (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your '(season 1, 2024)' suggestion, but disagree with waiting to rename the pages until the broadcast, unless you mean until the broadcast of the Christmas special. I also disagree on whether the UK v US convention should be discussed; per the Doctor Who website, it is called 'Season 1', so we don't have to rely on what RTD has said in interviews any further. Estaphel (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. If the Christmas special is added to iPlayer as part of season 1 straight away, then that would be fine. I guess we already use season for 63-89 per WP:COMMONNAME, so can potentially do the same here, but I do think it's worth clarifying that as the rationale for shifting to that terminology. Lastly, if moving to Doctor Who (season 1, 2024), do we also move Doctor Who (season 1) to Doctor Who (season 1, 1963−64), or manage via a hatnote? U-Mos (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the classic series to (Season 1-26, 1963-89) is probably the best port of call to avoid some confusion. The rationale I would (personally) use is that 'Season 1' (&c) is how the new series is to be marketed, referred to, and produced as, and thus justified for use. Estaphel (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree"(season X, YEAR)" seems reasonable to me, for both the classic era and this new era. Also worth noting though that if Season 1 did take this format then its year would be 2023-24 due to the christmas special. Mitchy Power (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow what the majority of sources are doing. And we may not know that for some time, and thus not have a reason to move away from "(series 14)". If the RS do end up mostly calling it "season 1", then we're going to have to disambiguate with something like "Doctor Who (2024, season 1)" or "Doctor Who (2024 season 1)" if people hate the comma (here seems to be a lot of comma-hate around WP:TV lately for some reason). I don't agree with "(season 1, 2024)" or the awful "(season 1 2024)", because the date is a disambiguator from previous "versions" or whatever you want to call them of the show, not a disambiguator of the season name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The date does disambiguate the season, unless you're proposing Doctor Who (2023, season 1), Doctor Who (2023, season 2), Doctor Who (2023, season 3) etc.? U-Mos (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who_series_14&oldid=1187785758"