Jump to content

Talk:Doctor Who series 14

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

Season 1 vs Series 14

[edit]
Please continue at #Arbitrary break 2 (post-RM) U-Mos (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 100th [anniversary special], then a 60th, then a 20th. 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]
BBC are referring it as Season 1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl6p/2024/05/11 (see times at 1820 and 1905) Njlawley (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001z8bz
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001z8c7/ Njlawley (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We know that—we wouldn't be having this discussion otherwise—but, as I said in the comment you responded to, we follow the common name, not the "official" one. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this a discussion just because some don't like the idea of not calling it Series 14? It's Season 1. To not call it that is disrespecting the shows creators and marketers. A lot of effort has gone into not alienating new viewers and making the show feel fresh. The dvd releases will be Season 1. iPlayer, TV guide and Disney Plus refer to this as season 1. Why go against that? Series 1 2005 is not called Season 27? If you want to drive people to find the Wikipedia article more easily and match the seasons actual name, the change is required. 81.111.226.5 (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly suggest you read the entire discussion, particularly the comments made at the top of this section: Doctor Who series 14 § Formal requested move. Wikipedia naming guidelines use the common, not official, name. There is no disrespect in that – I promise you RTD & co. aren't wringing their hands because Wikipedia hasn't changed the article to "Season 1". Irltoad (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Russell T Davies Rules Out New Doctor Who 20th Anniversary Special". Den of Geek. 28 March 2024. Retrieved 31 March 2024. Bold text added by User:TedEdwards
  2. ^ https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0D2LHMKBG

Season 1 vs Series 14: Arbitrary break

[edit]

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

Formal requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. This is a "no consensus for any title, so default to the status quo ante" closure.

There is a deep split in this discussion between the users in support of the move – numbering about 60% of the users – who, in general, are leaning on the series being marketed as season 1, and the rest in opposition, with sources claiming the lack of a COMMONNAME between "season 1" and "series 14". Against the backdrop of the article titles policy, these arguments — despite being less numerous – hold a significant amount of weight so as not to make this discussion a simple head-counting exercise (which we don't strictly do anyway). Additionally, the argument brought up before the formal RM but under this header, about how the first Moffat series (now universally referred to as series 5) was internally referred to as "series 1" before release, also holds some weight. Finally, the issue of how the TV naming conventions interacts with Doctor Who is not settled and I don't think we can bash that out to everyone's satisfaction in a formal RM.

As a result, the centre of gravity of this discussion is closer to the centre to either end, and I'm making a judgment call in favour of a) more discussion and b) more time before I can conclude there is a strong enough consensus for moving. This is, by no means, an end to this discussion; only an end to the RM process for now. I suggest we continue to hammer out the details in a more relaxed and less confrontational way. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– 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]
  • 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]
  • 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 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.)
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. 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
Estaphel (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not to these. Doctor Who 1963 and Doctor Who 2005 are not separate shows, they are different production eras of the same show. -- Alex_21 TALK 12:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, you would suppose that the most recent season should be renamed from Doctor Who series 14 → Doctor Who season 40. Some give has to be made if that is not what is going to happen and a way to delineate the start of one numbering system to another. The specific year one particular season came out is not helpful and only adds to the confusion which is not needed. Even the most diehard fans agree that the original run of Doctor Who was from (1963-1989). Heck you say "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).". So you do agree that it's a needed delineation. So that could also be a proposed date for them, though I do think that's not needed. --DarkAzure (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No secondary source refers to it regularly and commonly as Season 40. My quotation was concerning the date range format of the initially-suggested disambiguations, not the separation of Doctor Who as two separate shows. -- Alex_21 TALK 13:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No secondary source refers to it regularly and commonly as Season 40 Yes, though it does follow the logic you proposed. Almost all secondary sources do refer to it as Doctor Who (2005) though, even Wikipedia. I do see people talk about the 1963-1989 iterations (or to 1996 with TV movie), as Classic Doctor Who.
not the separation of Doctor Who as two separate shows I do not see it as a separate show and neither do you. Yet it does seem to me that we both also agree that there is a difference in the show from the "Classic Who Era" to the "New Who Era". Most places show off that difference by simply using the year of the first episode shown in each era. Back in 2010, Steven Moffat called the first season as showrunner Season 1. You can see it on Doctor Who Confidential slates at the time and other reports from back then calling it "Season 1". In the end the fan community didn't accept this change and they called the next season of Doctor Who, Season 6. To me it seems that Russell T Davies is also doing the same thing as he has taken over with a new production company, moving production from BBC Wales to Bad Wolf Productions. This to me is a very silly reason to, yet again, confuse casual viewers by restarting the numbering scheme once more.--DarkAzure (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitrary break 2 (post-RM)

[edit]
Please continue current discussion in #Second requested move. A new arbitrary break should be made once that discussion is closed. TheDoctorWhoPublic (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thought it best to create a new section here in case this discussion continues post-move. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the continuation of this discussion, just popping my general thoughts here. Previous suggestions were to wait and see how things are handled and I think that should still be the case. At the end of the season there should be a good spread of sources to review for WP:COMMONNAME purposes. It seems likely to me that though the BBC and Disney+ are using "season 1", many sources are and will continue to use "series 14" instead / as well, and Davies has acknowledged this. If that turns out to be the case then I think sticking with "series 14", but noting "season 1" in prose, makes sense as that avoids any confusion with the existing "season 1" and means we don't need to move so many pages. However, if sources on the whole start to primarily use "season 1" by the end of the season then the wider discussion of what to name all of the season articles should be restarted. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As this was closed with no consensus for a move, I don't know why we'd be worried about post-move discussions! I'll hat this unless there's an objection by more than one party.Nfitz (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the number of discussions about this that have already happened in a short amount of time, I think further discussion should be expected. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the closer's comments about requiring further discussion. Close this one, and it'll be promptly reverted. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do EIDR records count towards this discussion? Because, if so the issue is settled. Doctor Who (2005) ends with Series 13 (Flux). This is the EIDR for that portion of the franchise’s run (https://ui.eidr.org/view/content?id=10.5240/11A2-C069-8DC3-9801-52A9-9). Doctor Who (2023), is being considered a separate entity, and this season marks the first season of the new run (https://ui.eidr.org/view/content?id=10.5240/54EB-AD87-756A-219D-D96E-K). Esstroud (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's certainly worth mentioning, but it doesn't "settle" the issue. We already know that the production is treating them as separate entities (per iPlayer, etc.), but our policies demand more than just the "official" perspective. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to EIDR, we can now add the last "major" holdout, The TVDB (whose API powers metadata all over the internet including the TV Time tracking app) just made the switch (they were waiting on EIDR) and Doctor Who (2023) is now listed as a new series. I understand Wikipedia is basically just waiting on "common name" now. I think it's logical to assume that the "Common name"used in the press like Variety is heavily influenced by TVDB, IMDB, and Wikipedia. You have to remember these people writing for these sites are not all Doctor Who fans. They're simply going off what Google tells them and it would be irresponsible to not consider that Wikipedia waiting on them is occurring at the same time they're waiting on what Wikipedia (now the last major holdout in the data circles) is telling them. 72.135.54.84 (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The professional journalists are certainly relying on more than simply Google when they write their articles, but that's besides the point. We also don't make decisions based on what other sources might think of us—we have policies that dictate what we do. If some media outlets are choosing to use the same title that Wikipedia does, then that's fine, but it doesn't change the way we operate. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in that Wikipedia uses the "common" name, but I also think editors can place too much weight on the common name, and a lack of any weight at all on the official name. Arguments have suggested we wait for the premiere, then we wait for the home media, then we wait for the finale, it continuously evolves. Unique situations can often required unique solutions; policies are simply widely-accepted standards, and Wikipedia has no firm rules. Not working with 5P5 is how we end up with situations like the Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. We are now well into the new season airing and yet there's a high chance that new viewers who want to look for more information will be unable to find the appropriate article when searching, as Wikipedia now remains the only major source on the internet (as far as I can see) that refuses to adapt to the new naming. Hat notes are one thing but they don't appear under search engine results so they only go so far. I don't disagree that there is due process and compliance with Wiki policies that should be followed, but as someone who has seen this discussion evolve over the last several months it does seem like the goal posts keep shifting and I agree we should be working under the premise of 5P5.
I'd also argue there are now more than enough examples of usage of the new name to meet the "common name" guidelines. However little value is placed on them here, all official sources (post-release) and iPlayer have the new season listed as Season 1 (which was never the case for Series 5 despite what it may have been referred to by production at the start), the DVD/Blu Ray release is up for pre-order and listed as Season 1, and even secondary sources have now mostly updated to refer to it as Season 1, which as far as I understand is the main reason we have still been holding out until now. So at what point will it be enough?
The Star Trek debacle Alex has linked is the perfect example of what we should be trying to avoid. If the only hold out now is specifically how to format the titles in line with Wiki policy, then let's hope this gets resolved sooner rather than later, since we're now halfway through the season itself airing and somehow this still isn't resolved. For what it's worth I support the previous suggestion of appending dates to the end of all article titles (while it's only Season 1 and 2 that are confirmed at the moment, this would provide consistency and also future-proof for further seasons down the line, so we don't end up with these months-long back and forth discussions every time a new season drops). 82.44.116.2 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a harm in waiting until after the series is over. I absolutely disagree with the claim that Wikipedia is now the only major source referring to it as series 14 – a quick search for "Doctor Who series 14" finds numerous articles published in the last 7 days from several major entertainment publications calling it such. Waiting gives time to adjust, because although we are "halfway through" (in reality 3/8, or arguably 2/7) waiting will give publications time to adjust. That said, I do agree that the official name should have some weight. I personally would argue that publications that seem to use "series 14" and "season 1" interchangeably should count towards the season 1 tally as it indicates at least a partial adoption, although I can see arguments to the contrary. Irltoad (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The harm in waiting until it's over is that right now, when the series is playing is the most likely time that people will be looking for information on the season. People aren't searching "Doctor Who series 14", they're searching "Doctor Who season 1" because that's what their Disney+ tells them it's called.
By sticking to the name Series 14, we're purposefully making that information difficult to find.
There's really no more justification for keeping it as Series 14. El Dubs (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, if someone searches for "Doctor Who season 1" looking for the 2024 series, the very first line will direct them to their desired location. If enough people use that name, I'm sure most media outlets will eventually follow suit, and then we will. Until then, there's no rush. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And taking a quick look at page views so far, it does not look like the majority of people are going to the season 1 article. Views certainly spiked for that article when the new season started airing, but nowhere near the amount that they spiked for the series 14 article. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for better understanding, what season 1 article are you referring to ? Horyzon1963 (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the only Doctor Who article currently called season 1 – Doctor Who season 1 -Irltoad (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To help further, here is a comparison of season 1 and series 14; I've also included series 1 for further comparison. Clearly the series 14 spikes dwarf the others. It might be worth selecting logarithmic scale if you want changes in series/season 1 views to actually be discernible. Irltoad (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from #I think we should rename it

Doctor who series 14 should be renamed to season 1 due to how its labeled on bbc iplayer and disney plus, its also being advertised as a reboot just saying NellTheBean (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the above discussion. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i read the above discussion and only have the following naming scheme to offer as a suggestion.
Extended content
2407:7000:9DD5:BF00:698A:C5D7:86B2:87D9 (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely not. Those examples do not conform with WP:NCTV, way too much random disambiguation going on, and the revived era has never been commonly referred to as Season 27, 28, ..., 41. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The disambiguation used for the 2005–pres. series is long, unnecessary, and confusing. WP has never used "season X" to refer to the revival in article titles and nothing about this change makes it worth starting.
Regardless, the conversation has not primarily been on what to rename articles, but whether or not we should. I think people are, for the most part, happy with what has been previously suggested, but there are differing opinions about if it's necessary. Irltoad (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
here's a far less verbose alternative.
Extended content
2407:7000:9DD5:BF00:698A:C5D7:86B2:87D9 (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also disagree. They are not the names of the respective aired series/seasons. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
let the articles tell that tale 2407:7000:9DD5:BF00:698A:C5D7:86B2:87D9 (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources "tell that tale", and the sources do not regularly, commonly or officially call this particular series "season 40". -- Alex_21 TALK 08:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't make it any less true; as evidenced by redirects for all of them already existing. 2407:7000:9DD5:BF00:698A:C5D7:86B2:87D9 (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects do not name an article; they're alternate names for the main and correctly-named topic. And yes, the lack of sources do indeed make it less true - that's the whole point of sources. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i oppose renaming the article. this shall forever be season 14 of modern who, season 40 overall. 2407:7000:9DD5:BF00:698A:C5D7:86B2:87D9 (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, random IP, but the formal RM has closed and there's nothing to vote on. Also, it's currently series 14, cheers. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough, i just thought id say it anyway.
im keeping my copy named season 14 until i get all of classic who and then it shall become season 40... if i can figure out how to gracefully handle all of the metadata without manually reentering it.
large corporations are poor stewards of the cultural works their people produce.
either way though, so long as those redirects exist, the names of the articles matter very little to me personally.
live long and prosper and may the force be with you always. 2407:7000:9DD5:BF00:698A:C5D7:86B2:87D9 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ive always thought calling seasons "series" was retarded.
"A show/series consists of seasons comprised of episodes."
this is linguistically how these words have worked in my lived experience. 2407:7000:9DD5:BF00:796E:4115:6D02:7434 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a regional difference, not exclusive to this show, so this isn't the place to discuss it. Also, be aware that the last word of your first sentence is a pejorative and its usage is not appreciated. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK it is 'Series', and what you call series we call TV programs. It is just different dialects, and articles about doctor who usually use British English.
Also, the word retard is a slur against neurodivergent people. Please, PLEASE, never use it. Cal3000000 (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I love considering the current season as "Season 40" and I do number it as such privately, obviously we can't have this for official numbering because absolutely no source supports it. El Dubs (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Is it perhaps worth creating a redirect from Doctor Who season 1 (2024)? It could potentially serve to quell any (as far as I'm concerned, unfounded) fears that people won't be able to find this page. There is already a redirect using the old TV naming convention – Doctor Who (season 1, 2024) – although it's worth mentioning that that redirect gets very few views (in the 10s monthly, compared to this page in the 100000s). Still, it could provide reassurance to some if it exists while this discussion is ongoing.
I don't know how necessary it is, and given the heated discussion here, thought it best to get other opinions before creating it boldly. Irltoad (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because that link has no external links to it. If the link/redirect isn't going to be used, I'd say there's no point in having it, until/when we have a clear consensus to actually re-name this entry to Season 1. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I hadn't considered that and agree with you. Thanks Irltoad (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we are a different wiki with a different rules, but y'all may or may not find the Tardis Wiki discussion helpful. Cheers. 2601:204:E980:3960:296A:2E3E:DE8:58C0 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to this discussion as an onlooker, for whatever it might be worth, I would note that Benjamin Cook has recently stated his feeling that Wikis should stick with Series 14 rather than abiding the 'marketing POV'. The same discussion also has him clarify that the show is continuing, and is not a clean break or reboot post-cancellation. In-fact, he's clear that the show was not cancelled after Series 13.
https://twitter.com//benjamin_cook/status/1788322123276055000?s=46&t=EAHvugYsixQfElrgPdyjyQ
As a contributor to DWM, with a long-standing history as a friend of RTD - as well as frequent correspondent with him & collaborator; who has recently stepped up to produce new edits of older Doctor Who stories for Bad Wolf... it might be worth considering what he has said? 82.37.147.116 (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's always been clear that the show was never cancelled, that has never been up for debate. We also base our content off of reliable secondary sources, not necessarily just who's friends with the current showrunner. -- Alex_21 TALK 22:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


My primary issue with renaming this article to "season 1" is its potential to detrimentally affect other articles' clarity. E.g., if the opening of "Dot and Bubble" said it was the "fifth episode of the first season" as one might expect post-rename, would that most accurately convey the episode's placement? What's the easiest way to quickly indicate the same sense of continuity in episode pages without using the words "fourteenth series"?

Another example: the page "Doctor Who" has an infobox reading "No. of seasons: 26 (1963-1989)" and "No. of series: 14 (2005-present)". How would this be resolved? "No. of seasons: 27 (1963-1989; 2024-present)" may make it look like the Bad Wolf production has more to do with the classic run than the modern one, not to mention "season 27" doesn't exist. "No. of series: 13 (2005-2023)" groups the 2023 specials with the previous production era, so that's out; "(2005-2022)" looks like there was a gap in production and counts the 2022 specials as part of series 13, neither of which is accurate. "(2005-2021)" solves the latter but worsens the impression of a break.

I doubt these questions are technically within the scope of this talk page, but it's where the appropriate discussion is. It's worth considering a rename's impact on Wikipedia's ability to clearly, concisely state simple facts about Doctor Who. I know my view that the rename will create headaches elsewhere is moot if the common name truly shakes out to solely "season 1", but while both remain in use, perhaps other factors are relevant. I'm not asking for solutions to the above issues here and now (although if the move does prove inevitable, it would be nice to have this kind of thing sorted ahead of time). --Epixanthe (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That raises some good questions about how season and series are being used at other pages, but technically the name of this article shouldn't have an impact on that. Even if there was consensus to call this "Doctor Who season 1" that doesn't make it "the first season of Doctor Who" so the wording in this article and at others would need to be a bit more thought out than that. Since season and series are different words for the same thing, it is actually already incorrect and confusing to call this "the fourteenth series of Doctor Who". It would be more accurate to start this article with something like "the 14th series of Doctor Who's revived era, and the 40th season overall..." and adjust other articles accordingly. In that case, if there was a decision to change this to "Doctor Who season 1" the wording would just need to become something like this: "the first season of Doctor Who's Disney+ era [or however we are defining it], and the 40th season overall..." - adamstom97 (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Adam's said. This is such a minor issue to be concerned over, as the wording can easily be updated to reflect the actual meaning of the title. As for the infobox season parameters, they can easily be adjusted to something similar to the network parameters, and split between their eras. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately the article will rename to Season 1. It's only a matter of time before the common name matches the official name. It may take until season 2 ("Series 15"/"Season 41"), but it'll happen. Ultimately, I think the solution is just going to have to be in the (1963)/(2005)/(2024) as the disambiguation. El Dubs (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is inevitable really. I really doubt in 3 years series 3 of the Bad Wolf/Disney+/BBC 2023/2024 will be called "series 17" unless there's a serious fan revolt in terms of restarting the season numbers. When does series 1 officially even start, is it 2023 or 2024? D+ has Church on Ruby Road (2023) as episode 1, but TVDB has episode 1 as Space Babies (2024) with Church on Ruby Road as a "special" like the rest of the episodes. Anecdotally, Church on Ruby Road is centrally connected to the story of the following series, when previously it was kind of a stand alone episode not really connected to the following series. Ugh, this hurts my head. Maybe we should just wait until the DVD comes out as the "official" source to quell this debate, but until then there should probably be a stop gap as at this point Wikipedia is the only source remaining calling it series 14. MarkiPoli (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a brief discussion about episode numbering below, but I think the article already does it well: "The Church on Ruby Road" was a special in 2023 preceding the series premiere in 2024 (as done previously). I'm not sure what the home media release is expected to clarify; we already know the "official" title, and I doubt it will change anything regarding numbering. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Speace Babies" is officially episode 1, as per reliable sources; "The Church on Ruby Road" is also still available as a separate special. This is no different to every other Christmas special released. The initial agreement was indeed to wait for the home media release; however, that was overturned. There's a pretty strong agreement as to what the official title of this season is; however, the general consensus is based on most editors deciding to ignore the official sites in most regards, and only consider what secondary sources say, which is why (unfortunately) Wikipedia remains to title is thus. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Wikipedia policy is firstly on common usage, and second on secondary sources. I think you need to bone up on policy, rather than trying to impose your own preferences. Also, a lot of this seems to be based on the assumption that Disney will continue, and that ultimately this will be a no-brainer. Well maybe, but that's a WP:CRYSTALBALL violation - and with the information floating around that Disney deal and was only for 2 seasons, and that it's been significantly underperforming their expectations. I doubt very much that Series 16 (if there is one), is going to be branded as Series 3 if Disney bails - especially with a new Doctor; I suppose we could go the USA Blu-Ray route where we already have 7 season ones! Nfitz (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything past "based on the assumption that Disney will continue" is a dead end argument there. You appear to be saying that it's WP:CRYSTALBALL to believe the numbering will continue as it is currently? But it would appear to be even more of a WP:CRYSTALBALL violation to suggest that IF Disney were to pull out that the BBC would revert back to numbering from the 2005 relaunch. Common sense would say that if the current season is 1, and it has been renewed for seasons 2, then season 3 will follow regardless of if Disney are involved or not. Or to put it another way, when the options are "continuing a logical numbering scheme" or "potentially reverting to a previous numbering scheme if certain conditions are (or are not) met", only one of them would be WP:CRYSTALBALL. And it's not the former. It's a hoary problem, but also a problem that has affected the classic series for decades anyway - the number and terminology for much of that was post hoc created from published episode guides, and the articles note there is a point beyond which numbering may differ depending on the source used. It would seem that's the way the future lies for the current era of Who, and the official numbering will have to be reflected first (and the secondary numbering clarified in the articles). JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's entirely crystalballery - I'm just presenting an alternate, and equally likely scenario, where we'd never go the Series 1 route. Perhaps even increasingly likely as the Disney+ numbers bomb, and a "third" series becoming increasingly unlikely. With confusion on all sides, and multiple terms being used, including the status-quo, one retains the status-quo until things crystallize. Nfitz (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz I doubt very much Thank you for that WP:CRYSTAL assumption of yours and a declaration of your own preference. But as always, Nfitz, thank you for your drive-by's; maybe they'll be contributive. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I participate here frequently - just because I'm not obsessively replying to every person who posts, doesn't mean that are contributions aren't equal. I didn't even mention my own preferences - which are neither. My own preferences (as anyone's) are irrelevant. What matters is consistency, stability, and WP:COMMONNAME. And as far as common name, I'm seeing a LOT more references to series 14 than series 1; if I didn't get DWM, I'd barely see any references to series 1 outside the Disney+ GUI. Nfitz (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we tend to see only what we're looking for. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-conclusion break

[edit]

Now that the series has come to an end, I figured it might be worth revisiting the sources, as per the table above. It appears a few more sources have adopted "season 1" (including, notably, some papers of record), but it still seems a little more weighted towards "series 14" at the moment.

I've seen some editors imply that they feel the goalposts keep moving in this discussion—that, before changing the title, we should wait for the home media release, then the premiere, then the finale. For me, though, the goal remains the same: use the common name. It was "series 14" when the home media was announced, it was "series 14" when the premiere aired, and it was "series 14" after the finale. The goalposts remain firm; we're just being flexible with timing to account for any notable changes as the situation evolves. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its going to be pretty awkward if the DVD/Blu-Ray cover says "The Complete Season One" as series 13 and before do, but the article title is series 14.
I think we need an overhaul of all Doctor Who series/season articles. For example, "The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series) season 1" is clear and unambiguous, when without the qualifier, it could mean any of the first season of the 1959, 1985, 2002 or 2019 editions of the show. The "season/series" difference has always been less than ideal IMO, with a hatnote needed on the top of every season/series exemplifying this.
@JCrue's proposal is:
  • Doctor Who (1963–1989, season 1)
  • Doctor Who (2005–2022, series 1)
  • Doctor Who (2023–present, season 1)
And I feel this is a decent proposal, however I would get rid of the end dates as the start dates on their own are common knowledge and a good enough signpost as to which edition it is referring, and put the season/series out of the brackets as per recently decided TV series article naming rules.
  • Doctor Who (1963) season 1
  • Doctor Who (2005) series 1
  • Doctor Who (2023) season 1
Although, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles adds "TV series" after the year in the brackets e.g. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) season 1, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) season 1, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) season 1.
  • Doctor Who (1963 TV series) season 1
  • Doctor Who (2005 TV series) series 1
  • Doctor Who (2023 TV series) season 1
However, the TMNT shows are all narratively totally reset, when Doctor Who isn't (2005 is a soft reboot still referencing previous events but being a new story, with the 2023 edition not being a reboot whatsoever, directly following the previous series with just a change in numbering only). You could therefore make the claim adding "TV series" implies they are totally seperate shows when they aren't. MarkiPoli (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incongruity with the home video cover isn't really a strong reason to move the article, awkward though it may be. (It's happened before anyway: the US release of the first Collection Blu-ray is titled Tom Baker Complete First Season, despite being known as Season 12 everywhere else.) Of your three mentioned proposals, the third is the most compliant with WP:NCTV but, as you mentioned, it incorrectly implies there are three separate programmes. In the case of a move, the formal RM above probably suggested the best targets—though there's really no point in discussing titles unless consensus supports a move anyway. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Always happy to keep discussion. Indeed, the third suggestion above would be most compliant with NCTV, but it's still all the same program. The idea of
  • Doctor Who season 1 (1963–1964)
  • Doctor Who series 1 (2005) (or even just Doctor Who series 1)
  • Doctor Who season 1 (2024)
is also compliant with NCTV, in exactly the same way List of Neighbours characters (2024) or List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) are; it follows the base naming convention, and disambiguates at the end with a year. However, I can still see there's a lot of contention towards naming it Season 1, hence the lack of a consensus. However, my argument remains thus, that while I accept the common name policy, the official name is being completely ignored and not given any weight. Should it be given 100% weight? Absolutely not. But to outright ignore it raises issues.
As for the Tom Baker example, the "first season" is what it is titled in the US, for what is a UK-solely produced season, thus we follow UK standards. This is jointly a UK and US produced season, and if both countries title it "Season 1", we should be taking this into some account. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for others, but personally I give the official title about the same weight as any other reliable source (perhaps even more), hence its consideration in both tables. If consensus supports moving, those three proposed titles definitely seem like the most logical to me. And, just to clarify, I agree the Tom Baker example is not the same scenario and didn't intend for it to be considered as such. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting together an updated discussion Rhain. Per the table of sources, I think it is clear that both names are being used but Series 14 has the edge for WP:COMMONNAME. I also personally feel that Series 14 is the right choice from a WP:NATURAL perspective because it means we don't have to go add dates to all of the Doctor Who season articles, at least not yet.
While I don't think the articles need to be moved, I agree with some suggestions throughout this discussion that the wording in the lead of each season article could probably do with some improvement. For example, just because Series 14 is the COMMONNAME for this season does not mean we should start the article by calling it "The fourteenth series of the British science fiction television programme Doctor Who". "series" and "season" are used interchangeably for this programme, which makes this opening statement incorrect and misleading. A lot of the lead is also spent trying to explain what number season it is in general and for the showrunner. I would like to see a move towards using the overall season number at the start of each lead (i.e. "The 40th season of the British science fiction television programme Doctor Who") followed by streamlined clarification on the other details. I'm happy to help brainstorm potential wording for this. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging, and thanks Rhain for bringing up how people are being made to feel, because I think that's especially relevant here and IMO has become an obstacle to getting this issue resolved. I wanted to add my feelings on the discussion:
1. it's wild to me that some editors have seen what the BBC have decided to call their show and seem to have decided that they're wrong. No, I don't necessarily agree with the naming convention that the beeb or disney or bad wolf chose either, but that's not sufficient justification to not reflect that naming convention in the encyclopaedia article(s) about the show.
At the start I agree there was ambiguity as to what name was being used by the show production vs just prerelease publicity, but that has disappeared now and for some reason the positions are even more entrenched. I fear that in the added time this has become as much of an emotional issue as an editorial issue; this may be a consequence of the goalposting moving Rhain mentioned and of not acting on this issue earlier.
2. the rules lawyering is fatiguing, and it's inappropriate to use guidance to shut down discussions in this way.
Guidance helps when making editorial decisions by drawing on the history of similiar decisions that have been made before. It is not a trump card to shut down a discussion, especially when the reason the issue is being discussed at all is because it is a scenario that is beyond the current guidance! If the tv naming guidance had the answer we'd be sorted and we could all go home, but it doesn't.
I want to stress that I am describing how the conversation(s) feel(s) to me, not making any accusations towards any editor in particular.
Ultimately, I'd love to see the discussion move on from dismissing suggestions because they are not from a piece of editorial convention guidance, because that is not a productive contribution to the discussion. Instead, I wish I could see a discussion that's just about what title best fits the sources on the show and season name and numbering.
@Rhain mentions that there is no point discussing titles until their is consensus to move: I put it to you that this is backwards, and there won't be consensus to move until we have consensus for a solid proposal for a naming solution. It goes beyond one article, the answer has to be one that works for all iterations of the show.
Best wishes. JCrue (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody here has "decided" (or even suggested) that the BBC is "wrong", and that's not the point of this discussion. I disagree that "goalpost moving" has made the issue more emotional; the added time just ensures we're making the right decision. And I stand by my comment that there is no real point discussing specific titles at the moment—unless there is consensus that this is "season 1", there's no point trying to work out where or how to add the "2024" in the title (although, like I said, I think we got our answer a while ago, as affirmed by Alex above). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to put in a vote for article names that sidestep this series 14 vs. season 1 issue — by omitting the counting number for the series / season from the article title. That is, we'd have the likes of Doctor Who 1963–1964 season, Doctor Who 1964–1965 season, ..., Doctor Who 1989 season, Doctor Who 2005 season, ..., Doctor Who 2024 season. The lede of each article could clarify how that season/series is commonly named and numbered in terms of the number of seasons or series. Extra bells and whistles: (1) We could have 3 Wikipedia templates, one for each incarnation of the show, (or a single more complicated template) that takes the season/series number as an argument and produces appropriate boilerplate for each article's lede. (2) Infoboxes could include pointers to the the immediately previous and subsequent seasons/series or perhaps just include a link to a page of all seasons/series listed out chronologically. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

firstly, the 2005-2022 series are always called series, so it should be Doctor Who 2005 Series, not Doctor Who 2005 season. Secondly, That proposal does not work as the series are always numbered, as far as I can tell, and Wikipedia should follow WP:COMMONNAME. This is a debate about which of season 1 and series 14 is the common name Cal3000000 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the longer this whole decision is being left, the more emotional people’s responses and reasonings are becoming.
the bbc and and all official doctor who accounts refer to this new season as “Season 1”. It is listed on bbc iplayer as “Season 1”. The upcoming dvd releases are being packaged as “Season 1” as seen on all preorder sites.
This seems like a very clear and definitive answer as to what it is labelled as.
i think some people are neglecting the fact that quite often people and news sites do use the wiki as their aid when making articles as they believe it holds weight and the longer we choose to misname the season, the longer other articles will keep referring to it with the wrong name also. 2A00:23C6:7C0A:3D01:C1F1:A766:AFED:79B9 (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "official" title has been brought up several times, but it's not the only title we consider. And whether or not other sources use Wikipedia for their own research should not really be our concern (at least insofar as titles are concerned). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not only is the numbering counterintuitive to the uninitiated, so too is the distinction between "season" vs. "series". It is why I propose that we use years rather than giving semantic meaning to "season", "series" or the index within one of those. Yes, WP:COMMONNAME is quite important, but it is not the be-all and end-all. Each editor is free to express their own opinions of course, but please don't avoid my suggestion based upon the misunderstanding that it has been precluded by some authority. Lastly, I've been part of an article-name debate where the final selection was not one of the two initially specified alternatives, so don't dis your own preference merely because it is not one of the initially specified alternatives. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more important thing that your suggestion falls down at is WP:CRITERIA: I don't think it's recognisable – a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize – nor is it particularly natural – [a title] that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Someone familiar with the show might recognise that the 1979–1980 series is season 17, but I certainly had to check and I would say I'm very familiar with it! And it isn't particularly natural or searchable, either. I agree that WP:COMMONNAME is not the be-all and end-all for naming conventions and has a lot of nuance, but when it falls down at 2 of the core criteria for a good title, it is hard to see how it will work. I think particularly the recognisability is important there, as demonstrated by my example. Irltoad (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is the one proposal out of all of them I would be 100% against. It makes the current situation worse instead of better. Unlike Mythbusters, which is sorted by year (e.g. MythBusters (2003 season)) because there's no definitive season seperation, there is obviously numbered seasons here, just that the numbers are ambigious (Season 1 can mean any out of three different seasons). As you say, it would make the seasons near-unsearchable. MarkiPoli (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted that WP: COMMONNAME is not the be-all and end-all, but It should at least be considered. Also, I was trying to articulate the notion that most people would not search for 'doctor who 2005 series', they would search for 'doctor who series 1'. Cal3000000 (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, especially given the official announcement of the DVD/Blu Ray set today, it's appropriate to have another formal move discussion. My understanding previously was that there was a general consensus for the proposed format (i.e. Doctor Who season 1 (2024) et al), in the event of this article being moved to season 1. In line with my previous concern around unnecessary disambiguation, I'd like to see only the moves essential to changing the naming of the current sessions (Doctor Who season 1, Doctor Who season 2, Doctor Who series 14, Doctor Who series 15) discussed in the first instance, with the possibility of discussing moving other articles if those initial moves take place. U-Mos (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should probably have another formal move, however I think that we should agree on the moves. I would suggest these, suggested by @Alex 21 above.
Extended content
Cal3000000 (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because "season 1" is not unique, because the distinction between "season" and "series" is opaque to the uninitiated, because the Blu-ray releases don't use the same numbering as other sources, and because I'd like to modify my previous suggestion, I suggest the likes of "Doctor Who 1970 episodes" and "Doctor Who 1963–1964 episodes". Or, instead of "episodes" we could use "shows", "installments", "segments", or some other synonym. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this suggestion is completely unrecognisable and unnatural for searching and linking, which are core criteria for article names. It is pointless to try to make the distinction between "season/series ones" more recognisable by making all three less recognisable. Irltoad (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with any "Doctor Who 1963–1964 season", "Doctor Who 1963–1964 episodes", etc. formats. Firstly, it does not conform with WP:NCTV, when a completely comforming option is available. Secondly, if I want to look up Season 20 of the classic era, I have no idea when it aired off the top of my head.
I can definitely compromise here and agree with U-Mos's suggestion of only renaming the current/adjacently-named seasons, instead of all forty-two articles; the rest can be dealt with hatnotes. Doctor Who series 1 already has hatnotes to the two "season 1" articles; it can remain thus. The difference between "series" and "season" has existed on Wikipedia for decades without issue - why change it? -- Alex_21 TALK 21:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: in the event of a move, disambiguate seasons 1 and 2, then the rest only after new season articles are made. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I do still think they should all be moved, I would also be willing to meet in the middle and agree to only move the ones that actually have the same name for the time being. I'd rather some be moved than none at all. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a suitable compromise in this debate. Moving Series 14 > Season One, Series 15 > Season Two etc.
Removes the need to edit too many pages at once JoeyQuinnX (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So What would the name be of Them. I can see a consensus on just moving these two articles, but we still need to agree on what those move two to disambiguate between the 1963/4 season 1 and the 2024 season 1 Cal3000000 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the next requested move will likely target/request the following moves:
  • Doctor Who season 1 (1963–1964)
  • Doctor Who season 2 (1964–1965)
  • Doctor Who season 1 (2024)
  • Doctor Who season 2 (2025)
I'd say there's more agreement happening on what to rename them to, but not whether there's actually a consensus to move the articles yet. That's what another formal requested move discussion would be for. -- Alex_21 TALK 22:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed an increase in vandalism towards the pages in the last week and i do believe that us taking so much time to come to a decision is not helping.
we need to vote on what we name them going forward. There is zero reason for us to keep delaying any further. All evidence and official sources point towards the new season being titled as “Season One”. I do not understand why we are choosing to delay the inevitable JoeyQuinnX (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need an actual RM. The last RM ended in no consensus, partially because the season was still airing. Now that the season has ended and a firmer consensus has formed, we can have another RM. As for the exact format of the titles, I am not going to be the sacrificial lamb. I'll accept anything that mentions season number and year, either start of that entire edition or that season's release year(s). MarkiPoli (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think putting it in the format "Doctor Who (2023) season 2" is far more common. If you google it, that and "Doctor Who (2005) series 2" is the common way of disambiguating which series is being referred to. The bracketed year is the year the series first aired. This is standard formatting across the internet and should be the favoured way of disambiguating.
  • Doctor Who (1963) season 1
  • Doctor Who (1963) season 2
  • Doctor Who (2005) series 1
  • Doctor Who (2005) series 2
  • Doctor Who (2023) season 1
  • Doctor Who (2023) season 2
The name is easier to read from left to right as well, It's the name of the show, followed by which iteration of the show we're talking about, followed by the season of that show. El Dubs (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might be more common elsewhere, but it doesn't quite match Wikipedia's naming conventions for television. It also incorrectly implies there are three different shows named Doctor Who. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe its kind of a pointless mention, slightly anal if anything.
realistically the biggest thing about this move is deciding whether its “Series 14” or “Season One”.
the specifics are things we can work out further down the line. But we cant lose sight of what the actual aim is 2A00:23C6:7C0A:3D01:6049:F3D5:C795:6674 (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia's naming conventions for television don't match the common name, then we really have to weigh the two up. The common name is far more recognisable. That aside. There are three shows named Doctor Who. Each have their own EIDR record, they reset the numbering system. The only reason to consider them the same is that they're a continuation of the same story. In all records, they're separate. El Dubs (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not three separate shows, it is 1 show with 1 continuity which has been revived once and the series count has reset twice (or once). Cal3000000 (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC lists them on the EIDR as different shows. The 2005 show, and the 2023 show. "1 continuity = same show" is far too ambiguous of a criteria. Are Dexter and Dexter: New Blood the same show? Gilmore Girls and Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life? Full House, Fuller House. Because Wikipedia lists these as different shows, and the only real difference appears to be that they have a subtitle.
There's plenty of examples of shows starting back up with a new show, that carried on the story of their former self. El Dubs (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from #second requested move
The requested move template doesn't seem to be working, so I don't mind if someone changes the one above to make it into the proper template Cal3000000 (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you just forgot your closing }}. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When will this consensus come to a close? Im excited to hear the final result.
fingers crossed its changed to Season One 2A00:23C6:7C0A:3D01:8DA6:2E43:D397:C6F9 (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when you should close an RM, I'm quite new to Wikipedia, but the count is now 13/14 support to 5 oppose, with the last 7 all being support. This feels like a consensus to me, but I am not quite sure Cal3000000 (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An uninvolved editor will eventually evaluate the discussion to determine consensus (beyond simply counting votes). Until then, those who have participated needn't do anything about it. There's no rush. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thank you
,
Cal3000000 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Second requested move

[edit]

– I think there is a consensus for another requested move and for these move to be part of it, so I am starting another formal requested move. Cal3000000 (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. While it's important to acknowledge that "season 1" and "season 2" are generally considered the "official" titles for these, "series 14" and "series 15" remain the commonly recognisable names in reliable sources at the moment, as demonstrated in the table above (copied here for clarity). In line with WP:NAMECHANGES, this only includes sources published/updated after the series premiered (or thereabouts).
I believe the current titles remain the most appropriate for now, and better fulfil the criteria of the article title policy: it is recognisable, natural, precise, concise, consistent, and conventional. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just call it by its official name and stop being so stubborn. People new to Dr Who won't necessarily know which season we're referring to if the article is called "series fourteen" because the official name on the home media releases and on BBC iPlayer is season one! 217.155.47.250 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When will this consensus come to an end? I feel this discussion has gone on long enough and by looking through the comments, it seems the majority agree that the correct name is “Season One” 2A00:23C6:7C0A:3D01:AD2C:1F72:C416:3B6F (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please scroll down, select 'second requested move', hit edit, scroll down, click alongside (utc), hit enter, then write 'support', then publish changes. We appreciate all the annoyed support votes we can get! Thanks! @ 217.155.47.250 69.161.57.181 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Google the 2005 show, the common name for it is "Doctor Who (2005)", where multiple shows have the same name, the standard method of disambiguating is putting the initial year aired in brackets after the name. You can find sources across the internet showing Doctor Who (2005) follows this trend. This should be adjusted to have the seasons in that format "Doctor Who (2023) season 2". El Dubs (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have our own guidelines and policies concerning disambiguation; how other websites style programme names is up to them. "Doctor Who (2023) season 2" would not follow either the disambiguation guideline of the wider community, nor the specifics of disambiguation of the television project. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My preference is for the common name where naming conventions go against that. El Dubs (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: While WP:OFFICIAL isn't definitive, it carries significant weight. Considering the sources, New York Times and The Guardian, which are highly reputable, state it's season 1, while many lesser-quality sources say it's season 14. The most notable source for season 14 is Radio Times, but it's still not as authoritative as NYT and The Guardian. Given that WP:OFFICIAL, NYT, and The Guardian all support season 1, this should be given considerable weight. Even with more sources saying season 14, the high quality of those supporting season 1 outweighs them. MarkiPoli (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree that these sources should hold more weight than the likes of, say, Screenrant, and that the official name should bear some weight. I would also argue that sources that use both names should count as minor support for the move, as it suggests at least a partial adoption of the new name. Irltoad (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As a reader, I have been confused for months about why the English Wikipedia is the only place that is numbering this season as 14, while it’s referred to as 1 everywhere else. And I visited the article about the 1963 season so many times trying to find this one. It does not matter much whether we like or not the renumbering or find it logical or not (I would have gone for Season 14 too if I was choosing), what matters is that it is called Season 1 everywhere except here. ~ nicolas (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The data doesn't especially support the idea that people are frequently going to the wrong page (see pageviews): although Doctor Who series 1 and Doctor Who season 1 both spiked coinciding with each episode's release, views for these articles remained around 1⁄20 of this article's views—at most. This suggests that the vast majority of people are finding this article without issue. Those who do come to the wrong article can be easily redirected with the hatnotes that are present. Irltoad (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support There's clear direction of travel towards season 1 as opposed to a few months ago from the provided sources, and I think the home media release as season 1 is a persuasive new development. If we look at the naming WP:CRITERIA, this makes season 1 arguably more natural to search for at this point, and with disambiguation moving ever further towards being the most recognisable. If there's ever a time to not use the WP:COMMONNAME, it might well be this. U-Mos (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What I would like to see are how RSes are distinguishing between the 60s series 1 and this current series 1, as the name choice given here for the old series is awful looking and implies a completely separate show. We can talk about the diff between current 14 and 1, but I really more interested how the sources name the old show's first season on this light. Masem (t) 20:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can, from the example above, reliable sources disambiguate Doctor Who as three different shows: Doctor Who (1963–1989), Doctor Who (2005–2022), and Doctor Who (2023–present). However, this is incorrect per Wikipedia's standards, as it's all the same show, simply different eras of production. So, the very original season would be Doctor Who (1963–1989) Season 1; however, that absolutely "implies a completely separate show". -- Alex_21 TALK 00:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though to throw a comparable example, we have two Quantum Leap pages using the broadcast year to disambiguate despite the latter being considered a continuation of the first.
    I can see something like applied to the 63-89 show compared to the show from 2005 onward, but I cannot at all get behind calling the 2023-present a different show from the 2005-2022 with how heavy the continuity has been. Masem (t) 04:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a continuation, yes, but still remains a separate series. Doctor Who remains one continuous programme. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty examples of this that fall on both sides. Frasier (1993 TV series) and Frasier (2023 TV series). Clearly a continuation but are separate programmes. Law & Order on the other hand is one continuous programme but is one continuous programme. List of television series revivals has many more of both. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a bit of a strange case, I'm sure there's *some* other example, maybe not in english or potentially a long running anime? The series' numbering was restarted despite a direct continuation of the previous story. The reasoning is probably just not wanting to "scare" away new viewers with thinking they have to watch 13 previous seasons especially since they aren't available on Disney+. I'd argue technically there's 3 separate shows. I can fully understand a 30 year difference in a show being different articles (re Frasier).
    I think we're in pretty much uncharted waters here with regards to WP:NCTV and should fall back on the default article title policy, providing something that is clear and unambigious. I'd be fine with any of
    • Doctor Who (1963-1989) season 1 (start and finish dates of entire edition)
    • Doctor Who (1963) season 1 (only start year of edition)
    • Doctor Who (1963 TV series) season 1 (only start year of edition with "TV Series" added, if I had to choose one this would be it)
    • Doctor Who season 1 (1963–1964) (as suggested in the RM which I voted Support on, start and finish dates of season)
    MarkiPoli (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To name the articles thus, you would need a very clear consensus that this is three separate programmes. At this point, it is not (Doctor Who remains one long-running programme), and this any disambiguation between Doctor Who and "season" is invalid. Given that the current consensus is that Doctor Who is a singular programme, I'd say NCTV is very much charted waters, and clear and unambiguous. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your assumption that the general consensus that Doctor Who is a singular programme, unless sources can be provided that show otherwise the claim is baseless and potentially subjective in nature.
    Additionally, all publications from the primary source, the BBC, denote the three shows as clearly separate; this includes marketing, promotional materials, and interviews with the cast and showrunners. In fact, a source stating that is the very first source used in the article we're discussing.
    I wholeheartedly agree that there is a shared and connected narrative between the three programmes, but there are numerous instances of other television series (many of which are listed in this discussion thread) which have had similar revivals with a narrative continuation that are listed as separate shows elsewhere on this site.
    Maintaining the stance that Season One is Series 14 is only going to get harder when marketing and promotional material come out for Season Two, and Season Three if it is greenlit. Especially as international metadata sources, such as EIDR, have aligned with the BBC's stance and are now listing the three instances of the show as unique programmes. Lindelstud (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show a clear consensus on Wikipedia that it is three separate programmes? Can you link the articles for those three separate programmes? As a new editor, please make sure that you understand WP:CONSENSUS first. Thanks! -- Alex_21 TALK 03:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TVSEASON (the relevant part of WP:NCTV) doesn't include guidance on what to do when a show has different "editions" but are all one show, as you contend and I agree with especially considering there's only one Doctor Who article, not one for each edition. MarkiPoli (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's not the number of sources that use Season 1 over Series 14, it's the weight of the sources that need to be considered, and the more reputable sources are using the former. It is the more recognizable name (one of the core criteria as already linked above), given that both production companies across both countries use the name in both their releases and home media; I do not agree with Series 14 being more recognizable (especially once we update the infobox's image to the home media cover art). I can agree with renaming only the articles linked, and conforming future articles as they are created; I also agree with using the year range rather than just the premiere year for disambiguation of the classic seasons, for conformity. Common names are what is typically used (again, as already linked above), I can also agree with that, but there are always going to be unique situations that do not necessarily conform to every guideline and policy we list. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I'd say the COMMONNAME across official sources is nearly split evenly. Taking a quick glance at the chart, I don't feel like it's worth saying one side has only seven more than the other as it's likely we could continuously find more that continue to sway the balance. For example, USA Today, Comicbook.com, Popverse, TVZone, all use Season 1, none of these are listed in the chart. WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:NAMECHANGE along with those that use Season 1 as the common name far outweigh those that keep using Series 14. Despite the fact that the season numbering has been reset twice, all forty total seasons are one series, which is why we should use the years the season(s) were broadcast rather than separating by era. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with your usage of the word "official", but I appreciate those additional sources—I've added them to the table above. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see a loose analogy here to how Wikipedia's manual of style suggests approaching trademarks, which genuinely proposes its own conventions unless a fairly high standard is met to demonstrate near-universal usage of something that might otherwise be 'idiosyncratic' per Wikipedia's usual approach. It's really struck as more of a gimmick and branding thing to refer to the latest season of this show as a "Season 1" and the lack of universal uptake suggests that there is not a clean supermajority of sources accept this as a "Season 1" but understand it as a "Series 14" that succeeds what came immediately before. Per Alex_21 above, the proposed MRs look to the uninitiated like they might be articles about entirely different series. Such issue is probably resolvable with annotations and tips on pagetops, but at that point Wikipedia is massaging its own conventions to play along with a BBC marketing conceit it hasn't even sold everyone else on going along with. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. the series is called season 1 on Disney+, it is called season 1 on Iplayer, it is marketed at season 1, the home releases refer to it as season 1. This arguing in circles tells me a year will pass and this will STILL be series 14 because the opponents are not changing their minds! If you keep opposing at this point going in circles about it being season 14 then at this point this WILL easily go over 40k as it becomes the next Star Trek Into Darkness debate but even more memorable. Do you want people to make articles about this discussion? Because this is how it happens. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every time I have seen Wikipedia talk pages become the subject of news articles (what I'm assuming you meant?), the debate in question is one whose root cause is attempting to adhere to a Wikipedia policy that works pretty well as a universal rule, but is being applied to a subject area that's an exception where it doesn't work. If the current "official" name remains the official name then it might commonly be accepted and eventually become the clear COMMONNAME. But it'd be premature to make it the title ahead of time and as I suggested above, the contrivance will add a burden to the site (how will we communicate this contrivance to readers?) that may as well be pushed back until, and indeed if it ever does, actually become COMMONNAME. That's a pretty by-the-book approach to following Wikipedia policies, so it'd be a pretty boring article for anyone to write up or read. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason it won't be common name is because we have stubborn people who refuse to agree to change the title. By the time the agreement is made, the damage is already done. Or, it may never be made because by a year's time, it'll be known only as s14 because this site, the site reliably known to check for number of seasons and episode titles, refuses to change to what is official. That is damage done. It's like disregarding official and replacing it with fandom opinions. Personal opinions. Not official. Series 14 is only becoming common name because this site won't change the title. People have to refer to it as both because this page refers to them as BOTH. You'll only see the table change regarding news sources when this site changes the title. You're using the rules against the title change. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On Wikipedia: Article titles, It says to try for the following 5 characteristics:
    • recognisability - both are relatively recognisable, but I think season 1 is more recognisable
    • naturalness - both are very natural
    • precision - both are precise
    • consision - both are consise
    • consistency - we are discussing what should be consistent.
    note that there is nothing about an official name. In fact there is even a WP: article that says that that is not something to consider Cal3000000 (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    note that there is nothing about an official name. In fact there is even a WP: article that says that that is not something to consider And therein lies the issue we have constantly faced in this six-month-long discussion: "do not consider the official name". That's such a poor outlook. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also the opposite of what WP:OFFICIAL actually says: that "official" names should always be considered as a possibility. They're obviously not the only consideration, but to ignore them entirely is unproductive. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Commenting to say: The 'WP: article' (as you put it) is only an essay, not a guideline. It carries as much weight as the reader wishes to grant it. They can even choose to give it no weight and disregard it entirely. Pairs of essays that contract each other already exist (for example, WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY), so it's entirely possible that there could be an essay out there about the importance of taking official names into consideration. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being worried about an implicit case of WP:CIRCULAR / WP:CITOGENESIS is fair enough, but tough to argue – as it involves an assumption that Wikipedia is really that influential about how people think about things. In other move requests I have (or expect to) make arguments very similar to what you are doing here, but usually on matters where Wikipedia is not usually redundant to (and/or complemented) by a fan wiki on the same topic. However, for entertainment franchises with large online fanbases, I more typically would trust a fan wiki before I checked Wikipedia. In this case, there is a Wikipedia called Tardis Wiki, and I notice it refers to this season of the show as 'Series 14' as well. If I was still an active Doctor Who fan who felt passionately about what the season should be referred to, I'd focus my efforts there as I'd see it the more influential source for influencing how fans talk about something. Winning over how fans talk about the season is far more likely to influence the common name in the long term, and so in the long term you could be optimistic that Wikipedia would have to eventually recognize it as 'Season 1' even if you didn't focus your efforts here.
    As far as the idea Wikipedia is incorporating a 'fandom' opinion rather than an official opinion – in line with what Cal3000000 mentions immediately above, Wikipedia actually doesn't have any formal policy that says fandom opinions have any weight in what titles are. Rather, there are policies such as WP:COMMONNAME, WP:AT, and other policies which have been cited in comments on this page which might be considered as stronger arguments by the closer.
    IMO, a very similar conversation to the one we are having now was had earlier on this talk page, you might scroll up to the section around where Rhain begins a post "The "official" title has been brought up several times..." to get more of an idea of how exactly Wikipedia considers and factors in the considerations as you've presented them. Frustratingly, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability (see WP:SUSTAINED). Hence, my suggestion your efforts would be better served getting fan wikis (fan communities, etc.) to change how they talk about this season is a suggestion I make in earnest, as I would be quite happy to see you succeed. I do not think the current conditions would dictate this move redirect succeeding on Wikipedia at this time. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AVNOJ1989 In this case, there is a Wikipedia called Tardis Wiki, and I notice it refers to this season of the show as 'Series 14' as well. Do you mean this Season 1 page? This article and the relevant Fandom site are no longer valid; see their announcement concerning the fork from Fandom and invalidness of the latter site. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't care to keep up with the backroom dramatics such that a fandom site is no longer "valid". Like – what does that actually mean, in a practical sense? The wiki is still actively used by a number of users, and is still the first page that shows up when I type in 'doctor who fan wiki' into my search engine of choice. At least at this time, and relevant for the purpose of this conversation, regardless of the declarations from some group of people online about what is 'valid' or 'licit', Tardis Wiki can still play a role in determining the common language fans used, and so indirectly can play a role in what Wikipedia will title its article, by feeding into what is looked at when a COMMONNAME determination is made. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. As long as you are aware that the actual Tardis Wiki does not, in fact, name it Series 14. Regardless, fansites are irrelevant in the face of Wikipedia. Cheers. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the context of replying to a comment that builds off the one I posted earlier, you've posted a self-contradictory comment, suggesting one fanwiki is more 'actual' than another, and then suggesting they're altogether irrelevant. Who cares which fanwiki is more 'actual' than another? It doesn't matter. But whichever one (or both) feeds into WP:COMMONNAME, directly or indirectly, is something to consider in the big picture. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is correct. The tardis.wiki site is the legitimate site; the original is no longer ina ctive development. However, fansites are still not considered reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. So while you brought up the concept of the fan-based Wiki, I was happy to correct the status of it, but I am also able to point out the invalidness of its usage in this discussion; no contradiction present. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what exactly was the usage of it that was invalid? I feel like your replies completely ignore the context in which I originally brought them up and discussed them. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe what Alex 21 is trying to say it is not reliable as a reference as a site that has s14 still in the title. Alex, you're welcome to correct me and tell me I'm wrong. I tried to follow your train of thought.
    Whovians have changed the title of the series on the more reliable version of TARDIS Wiki.
    There are pockets of fans who refer to season 1 as series 14 and refuse to tag it properly. This page is not HELPING. AT. ALL. It's only feeding their belief because it looks like they're not the only ones referring to it by that.
    Sorry if this sounds demeaning, don't intend to. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, Alex seems to be making an argument about the validity of a fan wiki as a reference, except I didn't say anything about using as a reference in this discussion. Here's how I brought it up; "In this case, there is a Wikipedia called Tardis Wiki, and I notice it refers to this season of the show as 'Series 14' as well. If I was still an active Doctor Who fan who felt passionately about what the season should be referred to, I'd focus my efforts there as I'd see it the more influential source for influencing how fans talk about something. Winning over how fans talk about the season is far more likely to influence the common name in the long term, and so in the long term you could be optimistic that Wikipedia would have to eventually recognize it as 'Season 1' even if you didn't focus your efforts here."
    I'm not going to copypaste my entire comment, but this was in the context of allowing for a hypothetical implicit case of CIRCULAR/CITOGENESIS. (I felt your post was suggesting Wikipedia need to account, or hold itself accountable, for such a scenario.) Regardless of which 'version' of the Doctor Who fan you two (or others) believe is more reliable or still actively edited – an argument that doesn't look as cut and dry as you two are suggesting, and an argument I don't care to have anyway – I spoke in reference to the fan wiki which is currently showing up in search results for 'doctor who fan wiki', and thus more likely to be relevant in a hypothetical implicit case of CIRCULAR.
    If you are both sure that there is a version of the Wiki that already has your preferred nomenclature and it is "valid", I assume you both are also already sure it is going to overtake other doctor who fan wikis and be the top result in the future, then that too would positively feed in to your preferred nomenclature being the COMMONNAME in the future. But once again, if I were [either? of] you, and concerned about the situation as suggested above, I would probably prefer to invest my energy into ensuring my preferred version of the fan Wiki does become the most commonly visited and highest ranking in search results. Arguing with me about things I've not said isn't going to help either of you get the result you want. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Listings for the series by the BBC and Disney+ all refer to this as Season 1, all home media for purchase is using the title of Season 1. This is supported by the EIDR entry clearly showing the 2023 show is distinct from the 2005 show and the 1963 show. Lindelstud (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The use of series 14 is extremely confusing as pointed out by above editors. The current series is known as season 1 and the next as season 2. These are good disambiguators for a move that should have occurred months ago. Yeoutie (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
i believe that it should be renamed to Season One as thats what it is listed as by the bbc, disney, the official doctor who social media channels and on the official dvd.
I think a lot of long term fans are blinded by their own annoyance of a number reset rather than thinking about whats best.
with all advertisements and streaming services listing it as Season One, the fact that we still havent changed it here makes it harder for new fans and fans who are unaware of the side of the fandom who are still hesitant to respect the number reset to access this information.
we need to be a source of fact and honesty. This series has been renamed as Season One, we need to respect it and accept it 2A00:23C6:7C0A:3D01:8DA6:2E43:D397:C6F9 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it's probably partially that. Personally the series number reset makes no sense to me, but that's what they've decided, and what official and many other sources call it (it would take an overwhelming majority of reliable sources to overrule WP:OFFICIAL). MarkiPoli (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making the point. For saying the quiet part out loud. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: While there has been considerable discussion about this, when strength of argument is considered there is currently no clear consensus. Because of this, and becuase it has never been relisted, I am relisting this for additional discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, except go farther and move all the seasons per the earlier RM whose closure I still don't really agree with. I'm not sure what exactly is being looked for in the relisting comment about "strength of argument." The argument is this: most sources use "Season 1" for the 2024 season. That's the argument, and most of the oppose !votes seem to grant this too (and just argue that some sources use series 14, which sure, is true, but they're also a minority). Wikipedia "owns" the disambiguator, so we can and should stick the year there for clarity, but the BBC / Disney get to pick how they're marketing it. I'm very much against Wikipedia getting to make up our own name because we think it's dumb that they reset the counter again. Maybe it is dumb, but we should just honor it anyway, just like we have Star Trek (2009 film) and not Star Trek 11. SnowFire (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the opposers, I strongly disagree that "most of the oppose !votes seem to grant this". That's the opposite of what most oppose !votes are saying. Nobody is suggesting that editors "make up our own name" either. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the supports, I agree with Rhain above, but will also take it one further step, and wonder why all articles need to be renamed and how that idea relates to this being Season 1? Yes, we get this season is officially season 1, but how does that relate to adding, say, (1979–1980) to Doctor Who season 17? -- Alex_21 TALK 05:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely shouldn't be adding disambiguation where it is not needed. If there is only one Doctor Who season 17 then why would we need to specify which years it was released? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snowfire has a point. You're using a made up name to refer to season 1 by ignoring the name. That's really what it looks like, Rhain. Unfortunately. and Alex, we are disambiguating revival who and modern who not classic who. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All names are made up. Wikipedia did not conceive the title "series 14", and nobody is "ignoring" the name "season 1". This RM is specifically regarding disambiguation for two classic (1963–64, 1964–65) and two modern (2024, 2025) seasons, but I believe SnowFire is suggesting a chance to all forty-one as proposed earlier, so Alex's questions are entirely appropriate. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah fine. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to sidetrack from this specific MR request, but IMO, the year ranges are indeed "needed" for all the seasons. Well, nothing is really needed, but the standard is "it would be better / more clear", and IMO the years are clearly relevant now. The seasons are enough of a mess that a concrete, uncontroversial figure like airdate years can't be argued with.
Rhain: Fair enough, not all the opposers say this, I was exaggerating a tad there. SnowFire (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who initially argued for this more limited proposal, and against further disambiguation beforehand, I'll reiterate here that I did so expressly so the potential series 14 to season 1 move wasn't obscured by this question. Any editor has the right, and is welcome to, propose the additional moves after this discussion concludes, so I hope this discussion can stick to the four articles concerned. U-Mos (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Id say from reading the comments, the majority of us agree and support the idea that “Season One” is the correct title and the page should be renamed to that.
Theres then further discussion about what that means about the other page and what they will be renamed to, which is fine, but i feel thats a completely separate discussion.
This should purely be about whether or not its “Season One” or “Series 14” and we, for some unknown reason, keep delaying this switch even though we all know that eventually we’ll just move it. 2A00:23C6:7C0A:3D01:99BF:E49B:AEB:6C58 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Official sources call it Season 1, they never call it Series 14, and it is listed as Season 1 on all platforms where it is available, so it should be referred to as Season 1. The 2005-2022 Doctor Who gets its series named correctly and not as “Season 27” onward, so the same should be done here. Rahcmander (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I prefer series 14 you’re right so can we call it season 1 now please? Yacob01 (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yacob01, could you add your support please so the editor who figures out the decision can take account of your agreement easily? Makes you stand out. You simply replied instead of hitting edit alongside second requested move and scrolled down. Appreciate your agreement though. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course my mistake Yacob01 (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first season of the 2005-2022 Doctor Who series isn't not named on this Wikipedia as "Season 27" (and so on) out of deference to the official name, but because that is the WP:COMMONNAME for the series. Per WP:TITLE, Wikipedia does not necessarily have to use the 'official title'. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The series 1 page was made years after it's release, specifically 23:39, 18 June 2008‎. classic who's season 1 page made 06:52, 1 February 2012‎. we don't have the luxury of delaying the name change for years. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense does what you've said here actually connect to my post you're replying to? It seems rather disconnected. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
those 2 articles were made long after they were released is what I'm saying. It took. Years. For those to become common name.
We don't have years. Wikipedia is influential for people just getting into the fandom. A large number of people don't want to admit that in this discussion. TARDIS WIKI is going through teething getting on it's feet struggling to overtake the fandom wiki in terms of search results. That takes time. In the mean time, this should have factual, correct, legitimate, right information.
And it doesn't.
We wouldn't be having this discussion if this was decided months ago to change it to Doctor Who Season 1 and hashed out the disambiguation issue from there instead of arguing about the disambiguation in the move to season 1. The French have done it afaik in one of the archive's of this discussion.
If this sounds still disconnected to your post, please tell me, I tried to explain to the best of my ability how it does. Apologies if this sounds condescending, rude, or hurtful! 69.161.57.181 (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment directly spoke to the post by Rachmander, which read to me as suggesting Wikipedia is necessarily beholden to what is considered the "official title" for something. That's really all my post says.
Now, having said this, implicitly, if the 'official sources' can't get wider buy-in on what they want something to be called such that it isn't the most common name in use for it, then what Wikipedia titles an article about it will differ from the official name says. On top of this, if someone wants to bring in an external consideration – Wikipedia might play a role in getting the aforementioned wider buy-in – that's something I felt I tackled in an earlier comment. Said comment, which begins "Being worried about an implicit case of WP:CIRCULAR / WP:CITOGENESIS is fair enough..." but I make the point that it ultimately isn't Wikipedia's responsibility or concern to help reinforce an 'official title'. You've again brought up the question of a fan Wiki and just like I suggested there – any fan who wants to play more of an activist role in influencing what a greater audience refers to this show as is going to find their energy better spent influencing fan Wikis, and helping those fan Wikis become more influential. Simply, you can go out there and make "Season 1" the COMMONNAME, and then come back here and point to evidence that it has become the COMMONNAME. But arguing here that something isn't the common name but Wikipedia can help make it the COMMONNAME because it should be isn't compelling – at least in spirit, it's a violation of WP:RGW. The invocation of RGW is a bit of an extreme one (even if it is a violation in spirit, it's clearly not meeting the more serious topic matters RGW is more typically invoked in) but ultimately doesn't matter. Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to make determinations on what the COMMONNAME should be, but guidance on idenifying what it currently is. In fact, the more the argument is made, the more often an implicit admission is made that Season 1 currently isn't the COMMONNAME. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Season 1 isn't currently the common name for this season, but neither is Series 14. By all accounts they seem to be relatively even in usage and popularity. Because there is no singular common name and the page can only have one title we should use the official name, as that gives it more legitimacy than the non-official name of similar popularity. Rahcmander (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for agreeing with me on this issue, Rahcmander. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically what this boils down to. If there is a divide in what something is called, the official name will be the title unless a vast majority of sources call it something else. MarkiPoli (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2A00:23C6:7C0A:3D01:AD2C:1F72:C416:3B6F (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
U-Mos (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Common name looks to be Series 14 as a continuous lineage back to "NuWho" in 2005. While I can understand the marketing has changed I'd side with Series 14 due to that being the common name and causes less confusion than having two Doctor Who Season 1's on Wikipedia. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the type of people active here are biased and only see the old tv fanatic folks that wont accept change. the actual common name is season 1. 2603:6000:8B00:6AFF:99BB:D82F:FC6A:3656 (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per above, common name is series 14. It is only refered to as season 1 for Disney+'s users who are new to Doctor Who, and for marketing. The series was never cancelled, and the new series/season isn't a revival of the show, so it doesn't make sense to reset the numbering. —Mjks28 (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that the concept that it doesn't "make sense" to you personally is not a guideline nor policy. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
false. literally nobody "common" calls it series 14. hardcore old fans are not the "common" person and majority of folks call it season 1. 2603:6000:8B00:6AFF:99BB:D82F:FC6A:3656 (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus changes and it was decided to move series 14 to season 1. I would agree with MarkiPoli and El Dubs that the only version that makes sense is to keep with the "standard formatting across the internet" and go with "show name (year premiered) season/series ##":
- DarkAzure (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard disagree. They are not separate programs, and the above does not conform with WP:NCTV. These ideas need to stop being suggested. The "standard formatting across the internet" is a baseless suggestion. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard disagree with your hard disagree. Saying the year it came out does not mean they are separate programs and the prose of the show and article would never let people assume that either. This also conforms with WP:TVYEAR and WP:TVSEASON. Personally, I would prefer that the numbering continued in 2005 as Season 27, but that sadly did not occur.DarkAzure (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which are the naming convention for television-related articles, and simply content guidelines. It does not conform with WP:NCTV. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't read them, as WP:TVYEAR and WP:TVSEASON are on the WP:NCTV wiki page... WP:TVYEAR is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Additional disambiguation and WP:TVSEASON is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Season articles... Not a single guideline there says you should go with "show name season ## (year premiered-year ended)", the format proposed here is unique to this conversation inside of Wikipedia and is not supported by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Every guideline on WP:NCTV says to go with "show name (year premiered) season/series ##". --DarkAzure (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"show name (year premiered) season/series ##" is meant for instances where the series article is "show name (year premiered)", which is the case where there are two different series with the same name that are differentiated by their premiere years. But we are not talking about two (or three) different series with the same name, we are talking about one ongoing series. There is no "Doctor Who (1963)" and "Doctor Who (2005)", there is only "Doctor Who", so there should not be "Doctor Who (1963) season 1" or "Doctor Who (2005) series 1". - adamstom97 (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not standard either on Wikipedia or... well really anywhere. It comes over as quite WP:SYNTH.--DarkAzure (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to have a read of WP:SYNTH because it is in no way relevant to my comment. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that this is a situation where this is arguing that A + B = C, but if you would rather go with the general WP:OR that also works in this case. Look the thing is I agree that Doctor Who is a continuing show and I personally think that Series 14 should be called Season 40... but I know that's not the way it is. So we need to follow the agreed-upon standards, and what is proposed above, does not conform to any of those established standards.--DarkAzure (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The series is called "Doctor Who". The latest season is referred to as "season 1" or "series 14". Therefore, per WP:NCTV, this article should either be at "Doctor Who season 1" or "Doctor Who series 14". If consensus is that it should be at "Doctor Who season 1" then we will need to differentiate it from the existing "Doctor Who season 1". While I am not aware of this situation happening before, the standard practice for similar situations is to add the year to the end of the articles' titles. That is how the suggestion of "Doctor Who season 1 (1963–1964)" and "Doctor Who season 1 (2024)" came to be. It is unusual, but it is not entirely incorrect as far as the standard guidelines go. In contrast, "Doctor Who (1963) season 1" and "Doctor Who (2024) season 1" are incorrect, because all Wikipedia naming standards would suggest that we are talking about the first season of two different series. Just because that format is mentioned in the guidelines does not mean it is appropriate here, because the context in which it is mentioned does not apply here. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This really comes off as original work and is not backed up by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television. Every example listed there goes "Show Name + (Variation of show)" for the main page. When it comes to seasons, it then says you need to add on Season/Series ## after the agreed show listed, eg. "Show Name + (Variation of show) + Season/Series ##". all Wikipedia naming standards would suggest that we are talking about the first season of two different series this is an assumption and not written in the prose of the text. Can you show me any evidence that the manual of style shown in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television says you should go "Show Name + Season/Series ## + (Variation of show)"? If not, this is WP:OR & WP:SYNTH. If not, you cannot use WP:NCTV as the basis of your argument as that is not a part of the Manual of Style shown there.--DarkAzure (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to beat the dead horse here, but I do concur with what the other editors are saying. Doctor Who is one program. Say there was also a completely separate non-related TV series called Doctor Who created in 1950. Then we would have Doctor Who (1950 TV series) and Doctor Who (1950 TV series) season 1 if it was further split. However, since there's no other program called Doctor Who, and the program we're discussing here is one show, using Show Name + (Variation of show) + Season/Series ## is improper. Per WP:NCTV, if we were to use that method, it would inherently suggest that Doctor Who is three separate programs because that's the way any other show with the same name is set up. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well first off, I'll repeat that I also agree that this is a single story told since 1963. Though I do politely and strongly disagree with your premise that showing the release year makes people believe that it is two shows. Classic Who and New Who are known entities yet distinct from each other in this ongoing story (New Who has: improved story, acting, cinematography, visual effects, etc).
But I would say that what is being argued here is a good example of WP:SYNTH as people here are saying that they will not follow WP:NCTV as the standard MOS for Wikipedia (specifically the sections dedicated to this conversation WP:TVYEAR and WP:TVSEASON) or the standards established in all other major websites which use "Name (year premiered)". Every other major website follows this standard and Wikipedia also tells us to follow that standard. Lets not go into WP:OR.
Either they:
  1. stay the same.
  2. change to follow all standards as mentioned above.
  3. rename the most recent 2005 series 1-14 as Season 27-40.
I do not see any evidence that people think that Doctor Who season 1 & Doctor Who series 1 are different shows, as I do not see any evidence that they will think Doctor Who (1963) season 1 and Doctor Who (2005) series 1 are different shows either... as this is what all other major websites do and they don't have any issues. If people are unfamiliar with the show and make a false assumption initially, the articles themselves are good enough to let people know that this is an ongoing story.--DarkAzure (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm seeing is WP:DEADHORSE, a new editor who is simply argumentative. You have zero consensus for such article renames. Kindly read the naming convention properly, if that is a possible option for you. Cheers. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing on Wikipedia for around 15-20 years now... So while this is a relatively new account I am far from a new editor. Before I was primarily editing via my IP address and have casually added a lot of content to Wikipedia over the years. I have just not been a fan of the drama I have seen in Wikipedia. Luckily, that does not seem as frequent any longer and a motivator to finally make my edits look more official via an account.
Kindly read the naming convention properly, if that is a possible option for you I have done so and said as much previously. So in spirit of WP:GOODFAITH, can you please quote the specific sections of WP:NCTV (namely the sections dealing with this specific subject WP:TVYEAR and WP:TVSEASON), which I have missed that says TV shows should be listed in "Show Name season/series ## (Year Premier–Year End)"? While I do not believe it is there, I will concede that I might have missed a section which does back up this as a valid Manual of Style suggested by Wikipedia. Alternatively is there any major website which also follows the suggested name change?--DarkAzure (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in NCTV supports "Show Name (year) season/series ##". If you're referring to "Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) season 1", that is, as you've already been told, for separate TV series, not seasons, and not simply a year or year range. This is not that case. ""Show Name season/series ##" is supported by TVYEAR, and then any further disambiguation (such as the additional year or year range in brackets) is supported by WP:NCDAB - this is the exact same case as List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), in which the title conforms with NCTV and then any further disambiguation is added where necessary. Other examples across the Wikipedia community of "(Year Premier–Year End)" being supported are:
Can you quote any part of NCTV which supports simply a year disambiguation in the middle of the article title of a season? -- Alex_21 TALK 07:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP that responded (thank you Rhain for the NPA removal), I'm not being argumentative. I'm explaining, in detail, the guideline that I've been familar with for over a decade, and, as a page mover, moved thousands of articles in accordance to. There are no acceptable uses of "Show (year) season number" for season articles of the same show. There are acceptable (and default) uses of "Show (year TV series) season number" for season articles for different shows with the same name across different years. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Nothing in NCTV supports "Show Name (year) season/series ##". If you're referring to "Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) season 1", that is, as you've already been told, for separate TV series, not seasons, and not simply a year or year range. (..) "There are no acceptable uses of "Show (year) season number" for season articles of the same show. There are acceptable (and default) uses of "Show (year TV series) season number" for season articles for different shows with the same name across different years."
    So your posit is that any show that uses "Show Name (year)" means that it is a new show? Yeah, that is WP:SYNTH.
    A: Examples shown using "Show Name (year)" are re-releases.
    B: Doctor who is a continuous story with a decades-long break separating Classic Who and New Who eras.
    C: Therefore "Show Name (year)" cannot be used as Doctor Who is a single story...
    How is it that places like IMDB, TMDB, TheTVDB, Rotten Tomatoes, or even the BBC itself... all distinguish between Classic Who and New Who by their release date. Organising Classic Who as Doctor Who (1963) and New Who as Doctor Who (2005) is an established standard all across the internet. As said before, I do not see any evidence that people think that they are different shows. Classic Who and New Who are known entities yet distinct from each other. If people are unfamiliar with the show and make a false assumption initially, the articles themselves are good enough to let people know that this is an ongoing story. That's what a good encyclopaedia does.
  2. TVYEAR, and then any further disambiguation (such as the additional year or year range in brackets) is supported by WP:NCDAB
    You made an incorrect assumption that I was asking about Show Name (Year Premier–Year End). I was not. I was asking about "Show Name season/series ## (Year Premier–Year End)". That is the question as I have not found a single case from any major online database (not even sure about minor ones at this point) that lists season/series ## in the middle, after the name but before the year.
  3. Can you quote any part of NCTV which supports simply a year disambiguation in the middle of the article title of a season?
    Umh, you already gave an example listed from that section, but it's all in the prose of the article:
    "If there are multiple shows of the same name, include the disambiguation, similar to the above for TV series in the season description, for example, "The Apprentice (American TV series) season 1" and "The Apprentice (British TV series) series 1". Similar names should continue even if one version of the show has several more seasons than the other; for example, in the case of the above, the British version of The Apprentice has had three more seasons than the American version, but the naming continues up through all of them, including "The Apprentice (British TV series) series 17"." (..) "When there are two or more television productions of the same type and name, use one of the following methods:" (..) "Prefix the year of release or program debut – (1997 TV series). This is generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same country."
    To visualise this point they describe "Show Name (disambiguation) season/series ##" not "Show Name season/series ## (disambiguation)". Unless you are arguing that we should list all seasons into one and make series 14 season 40, then we have to concede that Classic Who and New Who are indeed multiple instances of this show albeit a single and continuous unbroken story.
    We have gotten around this so far by following New Who and calling them series instead of seasons (I would argue that's confusing to those who are not as into Doctor Who as we are), but if we are to add a third instance of this show that also now calls them seasons, we have to relent and acknowledge that there are 3 distinct instances of this show and we must add a (disambiguation) or (year premiered) after the show name to distinguish those 3 instances.
    I personally say we should keep it as it is. But if editors here on Wikipedia want to make 3 instances of this show, we either need to:
    1. change to follow all standards as mentioned above.
    2. rename the most recent 2005 series 1-14 as Season 27-40.
  4. To the IP that responded (thank you Rhain for the NPA removal), I'm not being argumentative,
    Just saw that now deleted troll post in the talk page history. Yeah, that was not cool and quite unproductive. I did literally ask Alex_21 to help provide examples and they did. It's hard to argue that a user is being argumentative when they are in WP:Good Faith spending their time and effort explaining their points of view when it is requested by another user. An honest exchange of ideas is the basis of all conversations where both parties wish for productive outcomes but see the issue differently from one another.
--DarkAzure (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see many oppose votes are claiming that Series 14 is the most common name, but is there an actual source for this? The table at the top of this discussion shows a relatively even split in news sources, and a search I did on google trends shows that Season 1 is the most searched (Although possibly due to crossover with the other season 1s), followed closely by Season 14, not Series. Is there a good source either way on this? Rahcmander (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. And honestly, “Series 14” is probably only used so much as this wikipedia still lists it as such. Like it or not, people use wikipedia as a strong source for their articles and pages. All official sources list it as “Season One”, the high usage of the term “series 14” is partly down to us refusing to correctly change the page name 2A00:23EE:1478:3617:F97E:DDDA:149C:9941 (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "source" is the table above; there is no singular reference that can be used to determine the common name, as that's the opposite of what WP:COMMONNAME demands. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if there’s no references pointing to Series 14 being a common name, wouldn’t that invalidate the argument that it is the common name, and therefore kind of invalidate all of the people voting oppose on those grounds? Rahcmander (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of references listed in the table above, as you have acknowledged. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean to say is that both season 1 and series 14 are both clearly common names, but there is no basis in the argument that Series 14 is obviously the most popular name. Rahcmander (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely basis in the argument—just as there is basis in a lot of arguments supporting the change. To disagree with the argument is perfectly appropriate, but to discredit its validity feels fruitless. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would also support the idea of calling it "Season 1" since that's what the main broadcasters refer to it as, so active viewers are primarily confronted with this designation. What I don't like is any proposed way of writing it as the article title. Yes, there are some rules on how to use the year in parentheses to distinguish between series with the same name, and here you can see how formalism runs into its limits. Rather than differentiating by the year of broadcasting or the year of the first season, I would put something like "Disney+ series, season 1" or "third run, season 1" etc.Chrz (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As with many other of the alternative suggestions, both of these titles have no precedent, fail WP:NCTV, and neither of them are even remotely close to a common or official name. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I said that the formalism of the rule has reached its limit here. Yes, the source may call it "Doctor Who (TV Series 2023– )", but that doesn't mean I have to like the title format "Doctor Who (TV Series 2023– ) season 1" or whatever with parenthesis in the middle used only here (or?). Chrz (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, what you do or do not like, is not a valid reason for supporting or opposing many things on Wikipedia, including page moves. TheDoctorWhoPublic (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps seeing the ridiculous results of these guidelines will prompt Wikipedia editors to reconsider whether they've made a mistake. Chrz (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with TDW. There are completely acceptable and guideline-conforming options present - why go with a non-conforming option in the face of those? -- Alex_21 TALK 10:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series, season 10) to Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) season 10: Implementing RfC on TV season article titles
    These are quite new guidelines. I would be more convinced if the community reconsidered them. This new format with the parenthesis in the middle is really ugly. I would avoid it at all costs, like by using 'series 14'. Chrz (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, they are the current guidelines. Want to start the reconsidering of them? By all means, go for it, but they remain implemented with consensus. "Ugly" isn't a guideline or policy, and doesn't change that fact. Titles that use parenthetical disambiguation at the end of the article title have been suggested. -- Alex_21 TALK 12:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I support moving to 'season' or 'series 1' but only if the parenthesis are at the end. I doubt anyone else will give such a conditional vote, but that's how I feel. If the parenthesis were to be in the middle, I would continue to support number 14. The "ugly" 3,9-Divinyl-2,4,8,10-tetraoxaspiro(5.5)undecane-like format with the parenthesis in the middle bothers me more than the numbering itself. Chrz (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [O]nly if the parenthesis are at the end - that's entirely what this whole RM concerns. Look at the requested page moves. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Series 14" is used in many places. More importantly, if the original 1963 series 1 page is renamed to something like "Series 1 (1963-1964)", then every single series should similarly have dates written after it, as far as I'm concerned, and that's completely insane. Far too convoluted. "Series 14 (1976 - 1977)" for the Classic Series, vs "Series 1 (2024)", and "Series 1 (2005)". "Season" works for the Classic Series, then Series 1 from 2005 onwards, keeping this as Series 14. If only there was a third word, besides Series and Season, that could be used, officially. But there isn't. ButterCashier (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, nobody is suggesting that the 1963–64 article be changed to "Series 1 (1963-1964)"; the only "Doctor Who series 1" is 2005. According to the proposal, the classic series will retain "season" and the new series will keep "series" up to 2022. This RM only suggests changes to four titles. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal says
    Doctor Who season 1 → Doctor Who season 1 (1963–1964)
    Doctor Who season 2 → Doctor Who season 2 (1964–1965)
    Doctor Who series 14 → Doctor Who season 1 (2024)
    Doctor Who series 15 → Doctor Who season 2 (2025)
    So what ButterCashier said above is partly accurate (outside from New Who) as the further the show goes on the more changes to previous "seasons" will have to occur. Though as the MOS WP:TVSEASON says:
    "Similar names should continue even if one version of the show has several more seasons than the other; for example, in the case of the above, the British version of The Apprentice has had three more seasons than the American version, but the naming continues up through all of them, including "The Apprentice (British TV series) series 17". Hatnotes should be used to provide links to the other shows' existing season pages if needed."
    So every single episode of Classic Doctor Who would need to be changed to keep it consistent. --DarkAzure (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was discussed at length earlier and the rough consensus was that it didn't apply; that's why the first RM proposed changes to all 41 articles, whereas this one is only for 4. Only the articles with identical names need disambiguation, in my opinion. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would that be convoluted? The way I see it the purpose of a page’s title is to tell people what it is, and the years would help differentiate between things that are called by the same name. Rahcmander (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though as WP:TVSEASON goes at length to show, the naming convention proposed does not follow the MOS standard in Wikipedia. It would need to be "Show Name (disambiguation) season/series ##" not "Show Name season/series ## (disambiguation)" aka "Doctor Who (1963) season 1".--DarkAzure (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, what you're failing to understand is that the above quotes concerns different shows. This is a singular show with identically-named seasons; the above quote does not apply. The "(disambiguation)" you have included concerns, yet again, different shows. Please do try to understand this. There is not a single example, in guidelines or as a live article example, that supports ""Doctor Who (1963) season 1" (no, I will not be responding to the wall of text above.) -- Alex_21 TALK 21:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And again you are making an assumption that any disambiguation defines them as new and "different shows". This is not supported by Wikipedia's Manual of Style nor is it supported by any other major website I had hereunto found. I have said many times that this is one show with one story but with two iterations. This conversation is about if now Wikipedia wishes to say that there are three iterations of this show and how to define them here if that is agreed.
    "There is not a single example, in guidelines or as a live article example, that supports "Doctor Who (1963) season 1" "
    I am sorry, that is incorrect as per WP:TVSEASON:
    "If there are multiple shows of the same name, include the disambiguation, similar to the above for TV series in the season description, for example, "The Apprentice (American TV series) season 1" and "The Apprentice (British TV series) series 1". Similar names should continue even if one version of the show has several more seasons than the other; for example, in the case of the above, the British version of The Apprentice has had three more seasons than the American version, but the naming continues up through all of them, including "The Apprentice (British TV series) series 17"." (..) "When there are two or more television productions of the same type and name, use one of the following methods:" (..) "Prefix the year of release or program debut – (1997 TV series). This is generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same country."
    eg: The Simpsons season 8 / Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) season 10 / Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series) season 3, etc
    Please can you give me some examples from any major website which supports the use of "Show Name season/series ## (disambiguation)" over "Show Name (disambiguation) season/series ##".
    "no, I will not be responding to the wall of text above."
    From the brief encounters I have had with you I can say you are a genuinely good editor and an asset to this site. I did in all good faith reply to your points and go through each point with evidence and examples. This is the basis of any ongoing discussion where people disagree and wish to come to a healthy and productive result. In this specific case I do believe that I have provided evidence to back up what I have said and do believe that the Manual of Style and all major websites do back me up on this. I am sorry that you seem to see me as a momentary adversary as I can genuinely say I do not feel that way about you or your edits. I am surprised and saddened you seem to feel that way about me :( I only wish for a genuine and honest exchange of ideas as a way to help improve things. I do not wish drama and have done a lot to try to avoid it online as I have experienced more than a lifetimes worth in real life. Far more than one should.--DarkAzure (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another wall of text, that's unfortunate. I'm not going to go around in circles, so I will summarize:
    • No, it is not an assumption, it is in accordance to editing along the naming convention for over a decade and moving thousands of articles in accordance to it.
    • No, there is not a single example of "(year)" disambiguation in the middle of an article title for any season article. No, you can't seem to provide any examples either.
    • No, repeating The Apprentice example does not make season-based disambiguation any more truer each time - all the examples you have ever provided are of separate series, as proven by "If there are multiple shows of the same name".
    • No, we do not name Wikipedia articles based on how IMDb, TMDB, TheTVDB, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. name articles.
    -- Alex_21 TALK 22:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Please provide some examples that support what you say. I have done so a few times now, and what is proposed does not follow the MOS.
    2. By not reading what I write, you are having a strawman argument. Please read, my point is "Show Name (disambiguation) season/series ##" i.e. Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) season 10 / MacGyver (2016 TV series) season 3 / S.W.A.T. (2017 TV series) season 2. Not "Show Name season/series ## (disambiguation)".
    3. They are multiple instances of the same show. The show should have continued with the same numbering scheme. It's what shows normally do as Twin Peaks did after its 26 year gap. It sensibly called the next season after Twin Peaks season 2, Twin Peaks season 3. It didn't call itself Twin Peaks series 1... Yet Doctor Who didn't. So we have to deal with these multiple instances of Doctor Who or keep things the same.
    4. Then please follow WP:TVSEASON and go with "Show Name (disambiguation) season/series ##" as that is the standard. Just because other examples shown are different shows doesn't make it the same case here, as I have shown in previous messages that is WP:SYNTH. That understanding is proven to be incorrect by all reliable sources I have found including by the BBC itself.
    --DarkAzure (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The disambiguation is for separate TV series. "(disambiguation)" by just "(year)" in the middle of the title is not a supported or listed example of NCTV; at the end of the title is per NCDAB. We do not title our articles based on what other websites do. I've said this multiple times, and I will not go in circles and repeat myself again. SYNTH is a content argument. Cheers. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:TALK#REPLIED on how to edit your comments after they have been responded to. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not see that you had replied to my post when I did that. The edit was to improve grammar & clarity and did not change the meaning or understanding of what I wrote previously.--DarkAzure (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The disambiguation is for separate TV series. But that is not based on any proof you have given, just your assumption and assertion. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. I have given you reliable sources even from the primary source. It is clear you do not wish to listen to any points provided. A pity. I do stand by what I said earlier, you are an asset here, but it seems you have made up your mind and are unwilling to have facts change them. Oh well. Hopefully our next interaction we will both be on the same side.--DarkAzure (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is per the guideline. "(2010 TV series)", "(Australian TV series)". Again: titling is not based on sources, content is - this is Star Trek Into Darkness all over again. And no worries - happy editing! -- Alex_21 TALK 00:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    God I hope not, that was crazy to watch. Ok, that is not my point! My point is "Show Name" + "(disambiguation)" + "season/series ##" My comments have not been on what the disambiguation is called, only the structure, "name (x) season #"... --DarkAzure (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NCTV doesn't say to use a generic "(disambiguation)". It says to use the same disambiguation as the relevant TV series, which is "(year/country TV series)". My comments have been on what disambiguation to use. There is no generic disambiguation structure supported. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been arguing against a point I am not making. My comments have been consistently about the structure of the rename proposed. It should be "Doctor Who (whatever) season 1" not "Doctor Who season 1 (whatever)". So the structure "name (x) season #" is the point I have been making.--DarkAzure (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is not a form of disambiguation that is supported. The only "(whatever)" that is supported in the middle of the title is the "TV series" disambiguation. That is the argument I have been making. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where on the MOS does it support "name season # (x)" with the disambiguation after the season? I have read the MOS and quoted before where it says you need to use "name (x) season #" with the disambiguation before the season.--DarkAzure (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. You believe you have quoted before where it says you need to use "name (just year) season #" with the disambiguation before the season, while incorrectly quoting before where it says you need to use "name (year TV series) season #" with the disambiguation before the season for separate series articles. It is not a season naming guideline.
    Concerning "name season # (YEAR)", the ""name season #" part is per NCTV, and the additional "(YEAR)" is supported by WP:NCDAB: For disambiguating specific topic pages by using an unambiguous article title, several options are available: Parenthetical disambiguation. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be: the subject or context to which the topic applies. See how all of the examples are at the end of the primary title. Disambiguation guidelines can be combined, they are not exclusive. -- Alex_21 TALK 10:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. At least read what I have said if you want to make a point. I have said multiple times that the (year) is not my point, it was to try and show the order. Can you move past that as you are still arguing a point which I am not making.
    Yes that is what a disambiguation is. I am aware, but again that is not my point.
    See how all of the examples are at the end of the primary title. YES Exactly my point! So are you saying that the show name is "Doctor Who season 1" or "Doctor Who"? My point is that "Doctor Who" is the title of the show. So the "Parenthetical disambiguation" needs to go behind that and before "season #".--DarkAzure (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could decide to treat Doctor Who as three separate shows, split Doctor Who accordingly, and therefore disambiguate the three shows through Doctor Who (1963 TV series) season 1 / Doctor Who (2023 TV series) season 1 etc. I believe from this discussion there is consensus to continue treating it as one show. So we are disambiguating between, potentially, two instances of "Doctor Who season 1" where there is not a separate show to disambiguate with. Hence the suggestion in hand, to disambiguate using the season year/s, at the end of the relevant article titles. U-Mos (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong method though as shown throughout all the MOS and shown on WP:TVSEASON. I suggest that things remain as they are. but if a disambiguation is added it needs to be after the title and before the season. So yes it should be Doctor Who (1963 TV series) season 1 / Doctor Who (2023 TV series) season 1 etc. or Doctor Who (disambiguation) season #. That (disambiguation) can be discussed and proposed upon, but it really needs to be in that order. I would suggest that year makes the most sense as that is the standard used everywhere. It could also be by the production company, namely Doctor Who (BBC) season 1 / Doctor Who (BBC Wales) series 1 / Doctor Who (Bad Wolf) season 1 (if series 14 is renamed to season 1, which I have made comments about above and do not support at the moment). It is not my preference as I have stated I do prefer the year, but at least that would make sense as it would follow the MOS. I still say keep it the same.--DarkAzure (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've stated your view to that effect, which does not appear to have garnered much agreement. You also oppose any move at this time, which is of course fair, so I'm not sure why you keep restating this point? U-Mos (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to garner an agreement when there is a disagreement on what I am saying. I have only been restating my very specific point as at least one user seems to have been confused about what I have said or what precisely my point is; making arguments on points that I am not making. Considering how prolific they are on Wikipedia I can only assume that they are not trolling me but are genuinely confused. If so, something must be wrong with how I have described my points. I am glad that at least someone here has said that they do understand and my point has come across successfully.--DarkAzure (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern at this stage is that this very lengthy digression between two people is hindering others from engaging in the discussion, and from any potential closers from assessing the matter. U-Mos (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It's good to finally have another user involved that can say yes my point is clear and understood. When you are having a conversation with only one person and there is a disagreement on what is actually said or what your actual point is, one does get concerned that they are not effectively describing their point and only confusing people.--13:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC) DarkAzure (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my points very clear, and continued to explain the exact same thing below. No offense, but your passive agressive comments do not garner any further support. Drop the stick. -- Alex_21 TALK 12:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
passive agressive comments? Not sure what that is about? I have complimented you quite a lot, I have also said multiple times that you have been arguing a point that I am not making. I hope you can agree that can get quite frustrating when it is continuous and not just a one-off mistake.--DarkAzure (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why my comment was removed? It wasnt a personal attack, just stating that this discussion has become a bit of a mess due to the lengthy back and forth between two users, potentially making it difficult for new users to share their points.
there is no rule that i need to be logged in to join in with the discussion.
removing my one comment after you yourself have posted numerous times seems a bit unfair, no? 2A00:23C6:7C0A:3D01:2521:5707:C0DD:B558 (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I contributed massive sections of multiple pages via my IP for many many years as a way to try and keep myself partially disengaged. It has its positives and negatives, especially on talk pages.--DarkAzure (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article title is "Doctor Who season 1", and there would be multiple articles by that title, so the article title is what need disambiguating, not the show name. There is nothing in NCDAB anywhere near close to "disambiguate the first part of the article title". "Doctor Who" does not need disambiguating, but "Doctor Who season 1" does. There are no "parts" of the latter article title, it is one complete and entire title; television series and their respective seasons are discrete and sufficiently differentiated topics so as to not be ambiguous. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the suggested move does not go through, the mentioned renamings "Season 1 (2024)" and "Season 2 (2024)" should be redirects to series 14 and 15 respectively. XCBRO172 (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The BBC have called it Season 1, Disney+ are calling it Season 1. It’s been released for DVD titled as Season 1.
We are only confusing readers by continuing to go against the series name change. Twood36 (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It's alarming to me this is STILL being debated. OF COURSE it is Season 1 and needs to be moved YESTERDAY. NOBODY calls it series 14 expect old fans who won't let go or are doing it spite disney. You have a duty here to respect the companies that have made this series and chosen to renumber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:8B00:6AFF:99BB:D82F:FC6A:3656 (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYKs

[edit]

I am stating now that I intend to nominate the first two episodes for DYK. The WP:DRWHO has had almost no DYK in recent years. I believe these 8 episode will greatly assist in this. I also have intentions to get 14x2 to GAN once I wrap up the series 2 GAN. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both episode 1 and 2 have been nomed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just expanded "Boom" significantly. You hopefully shouldn't have trouble pulling potential DYK's from it. I think I may try to get Boom to GAN, I just need to do a copy edit on the critical response section and hopefully expand it from it's current state. TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll get a QPQ done and look over the page. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 13:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Boom has now passed WP:WHO has achvied 3 GAs in a month last time this happened January 2022. Before that April 2020. I dont TDC or 73Y are to far away from GAN. I think a Series 14 GT May be possible. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking the same thing regarding a GT. I was actually getting ready to nominate 73Y, the only thing it's really missing is viewing figures which should be here in a few days. I'd be willing to take that on if you want to focus on TDC since you've already put quite a bit of work into that one. These ([30] and [31]) may also help you with that (or the full Unleashed episode if you have access to iPlayer). TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to conominate 73Y if you'd be okay with that. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind at all, I listed you as a co-nominator! TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should help us keep track of where we are:
edit | discuss
Doctor Who series 14
10 articles
"The Church on Ruby Road"
"Space Babies"
"The Devil's Chord"
"Boom" (Doctor Who)
"73 Yards"
"Dot and Bubble"
"Rogue" (Doctor Who)
"The Legend of Ruby Sunday"
"Empire of Death" (Doctor Who episode)
TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a Series 14 GT May be possible. Series 14 has not yet concluded and may be subject to mass changes as it continues to air; this article, at this point, definitely shouldn't be nominated. Wait until some time after the finale has aired. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I do agree, I personally didn't plan on nominating it anytime soon. Episode articles however don't typically change much after a week or so, bar some viewing figures, so those can be worked on in the meantime. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: Thank you for putting the table together. A bit of an update, I have sent The Devil's Chord to GAN. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: Would you be interested in going back to get space babies and TCORR to GAN? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to nominate rouge for DYK. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just sent Space Babies off to the powers that be at GAN. The series article is all that's left now! We could always nominate Rouge's DYK after the GAR if we still wanted to. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas special - in series 14 or not in series 14?

[edit]

An IP editor updated the infobox to have the episode count and start date include the 2023 Christmas special. I was going to revert them with the reason "TCORR is not part of series 14", but it is included in the episode table.

I don't think we can have it both ways. If the infobox is to reflect series 14 and only series 14, shouldn't we remove the Christmas special from the episode table? It feels odd to claim it as part of series 14 by including in in this table, but also to reject it as being part of series 14 by keeping it out of the infobox.

If it's important to keep it mentioned in some way, is there a way we can more clearly separate and delineate it from series 14? Have it in a section by itself before or after the main episode table with a sentence saying something along the lines of "Series 14 was preceded by a Christmas special in 2023..."? JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who
Series 14
ShowrunnerRussell T Davies
Starring
No. of stories7
No. of episodes8 (+1 special)
Release
Original network
Original release25 December 2023 (2023-12-25)
Original release11 May (2024-05-11) –
22 June 2024 (2024-06-22)
Series chronology
← Previous
2023 specials
Next →
Series 15
List of episodes
@JustAnotherCompanion: I am going to revert to the status quo for now pending this discussion because fully implementing a change like that would require updating 9/13 other series articles. As Alex, and others, have said previously. It's simply included here for convivence. Multiple aspects of the specials production, airing, casting, marketing, etc. are covered here as well. Many sources agree that the series has eight episodes and it'd be a major failure on Wikipedia's part to list more than that. However, it also feels like we're not fully covering the topic to remove it, given that it was produced in the same production run, and is included on the home media release.
I could potentially see changing it to something like I included on the right as a compromise. It would be incorrect to say the series aired from December all the way thorough to May when there was a five month gap with no episodes. I do have to say it seems a little odd that we include supplemental episodes in the Infoboxes (Doctor Who series 2, Doctor Who series 6, Doctor Who specials (2023), etc.) when the specials are full episodes of the programme and receive a numbered story, where supplemental episodes don't? However, I'm still not entirely sure it'd be necessary. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start by saying I absolutely understand everything you say here, and the action taken.
I don't dispute that multiple sources say the series has 8 episodes. I also appreciate the extras (using that word rather than the more specific 'Christmas special' to allow for what I say to apply to other series articles also) being included for all the reasons you give. Where I'm coming from is "Something here is clearly confusing people, so how do we make it less confusing?"
I'll ignore the infobox for a second to concentrate on the article. I think having a single table makes things confusing. My preference would be for a single table for the series 14 episodes, and a separate table or section for the extras - in this case the Christmas special. Then people could still see and have access to all the related information, but it's more clearly split from the actual series.
Granted this then introduces the argument of whether you go series first then specials, or whether you try to go chronological and have the series table or section in some cases preceded by the specials section. I'll not go too deeply into that now,though, will wait and see if a split happens first.
Back to the infobox; my understanding of Wikipedia infoboxes is that they're supposed to be useful for at-a-glance information, and that anything more complicated should be left for the article. The one of the key points for infoboxes is to try and avoid doing too much heavy lifting with them, as were (and this is where I've had an issue with chronology in episode infoboxes, something I also have to come back to. But I digress). I think your proposed infobox amendment is an improvement over the existing one that ignores the Christmas special, and the reverted one that added the special to the count. I think my preference would be to have '8' on one line and 'Christmas Special' on the next line - but I realise that's because I'm looking at this case in isolation, and that if there's even one other series with multiple specials in addition to episodes, listing them like this would make the infobox look clunky.
I would be most interested in seeing what other editors think. I'm aware that I'm in waters where articles are 20 years old, and the slightest suggestion could have far-reaching ramifications. (insert grimacing face emoji here) (followed by smiling face with sweat emoji) XD JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest waiting to see if anyone else has opinions before performing such a widespread change. From an informational standpoint: at maximum a series article has two specials (Series 7, 9, and 10). The Infobox can handle a third date and we'd just increment to (+2 specials) instead. The most "clunky" looking of these would probably be series 7 where'd we have to have 4 date listings total (25 December 2011, 1 September–29 September 2012, 25 December 2012, and 30 March–18 May 2013). Series 8 and 9 would require three date listings. It would also look clunky for an article like series 2 where we're listing something along the lines of (+1 special; +14 supplemental). If anyone wants to see mockups of what any of these Infoboxes would look like with the additional information, let me know and I'll leave them below. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


On Disney+ it is included as a special and also included in season 1. Which makes it both perplexing. However Call The Midwife includes their Christmas specials with their seasons as seen on Netflix and PBS (necessary example due to having Christmas specials). I realize someone will argue against it's inclusion in season 1 but I am just sharing what is on Doctor Who season 1 on Disney+. Not arguing with anyone just some two cents to the argument because it's a really good and interesting one due to differing opinions. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, U.S. streamers have typically included all specials as a numbered episode (don't even get me started on HBO Max's "season 4, episode 18" or "season 7, episode 16" of Doctor Who). The past 13 series have been based on the BBC as the original broadcaster (along with other sources), which doesn't number any of the specials. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not what we've done for every other series article with a Christmas special before, merging the special with the main table and separating them with the relevant headers? I could quote the relevant WPDW discussions, if needed. What's specifically different with Ruby Road and Season 1, or is it more the recentism of it that's made it become a focus? While it was produced alongside the series, it is not part of the series itself. I would disagree with the addition of the date to the infobox, but would support the removal of the supplemental episode count from the infobox too; this is why we list is as "–" for the series positioning. Yes, it's also part of the home media release, but we seem to be picking and choosing what "official" content we use, don't we? We need to list it because it's on the home media, but we ignore the big "Season One" on the cover? -- Alex_21 TALK 07:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to this question first: What's specifically different with Ruby Road and Season 1, or is it more the recentism of it that's made it become a focus? It's simply down to the fact that my interest in DW has been around the new episodes enthusing me about the series again, and I wasn't an editor of the DW articles in the past. If that's 'recentism', I'm guilty as charged; but it's not that I'm intentionally ignoring the past. Simply, I saw this here first of all so made sense to comment here.
I'm inclined to agree with you on the infobox, with regards to my previous comments about infoboxes should present information simply and clearly. In terms of the article table, I think it could be more clearly delineated than simply listing it as "-". If it would help I could try using my sandbox to knock up some examples of how I think the table could be presented differently - though I must warn that I have tried already but struggled due to lack of experience with tables, so it may take me some time.
Broadly speaking, I'm aware that I'm dabbling in connected articles that go back 20 years or more, so I'm not WP:BOLDly changing too much. I think asking questions when there seems to be confusion or inconsistency is fair, and I don't think past decision should necessarily be a bar to making different decisions now if times and practices have changed. I hope that clarifies better when I'm coming from, at least. Best regards JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this discussion hasn't been widely publicized, but I'll BOLDLY remove the supplemental episodes from the Infoboxes if no one objects here in another day or two. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who_series_14&oldid=1236973043"