Howling:Series 14 (Doctor Who)

The Howling → Series 14 (Doctor Who)

There be spoilers about un-released stories here.
Run back to the forums if you're scared.

Spoilers

Does Billie Piper and Matt Smith expressing some willingness to return at some point really count as a rumour that they will be involved in series 14? Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 10:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Per the above rules, spoilery content was removed from this page. Shambala108 ☎ 14:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me rephrase; the points in the Rumours section (which I cannot describe here) do not belong there any more than Carole Ann Ford saying that she would "jump at the chance" to play Susan again would have belonged in the Rumours section of series 12. The "rumours" do not state that the people in question will be returning but that they would be willing to. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 13:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Anniversary

I notice a lot of reference is made to "the 60th anniversary special" even though there are rumours of <redacted per Tardis:Spoiler policy>, coinciding with the 60th. Should we remain referring to "the 60th anniversary special" (<redacted per Tardis:Spoiler policy>) until anything is confirmed otherwise? FractalDoctor ☎ 10:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have the same question. I've seen pictures of clapper boards, but nothing as of yet which can be used as a valid source. 66 Seconds ☎ 09:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Start date?

Do we have a source for this <redacted per Tardis:Spoiler policy> start date? WaltK ☎ 19:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Writers

Where exactly in the source given does it say that [Writer name, no spoilers] wrote all three episodes? What's the verbatim quote? The only quote even mentioning the 60th anniversary is "I’ve already written some of the episodes. The first will go out in November 2023 – that’s the 60th anniversary of the show." 120.20.172.45^{talk to me} 08:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Just a reminder for anyone replying to this question: no spoilers are allowed on this talk page. Shambala108 ☎ 17:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct, but somebody is going to have to answer this, lest you keep unsourced content in the article. 120.20.158.146^{talk to me} 00:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It will be answered without spoilers or not at all. Shambala108 ☎ 02:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. So if it's not answered, then the content remains unsourced and can be removed. 122.199.43.25^{talk to me} 12:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

What kind of sense does it make to block spoilers on a talk page for an article that allows spoilers? If we can't talk about a page on its talk page, we'd might as well not have one at all! Where does T:SPOIL require anything like this? – n8 (☎) 16:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, but disallowing spoilers on the talk page for a spoilery page is 1000% counterproductive, and regardless of whatever policy may or may not exist — and if it isn't a policy then it shouldn't be exclusively binding, as per T:LOCAL RULES — an exception must be made for this talk page under the very obvious circumstances. Otherwise, the only discussion that can be had is through edit summaries, which can lead to edit wars which creates a million more issues than saying that Scottish-Rwandan actor's name on this talk page.

Epsilon📯 📂

16:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've gone ahead and moved this talk page to the "Howling:" namespace so we can, yknow, actually talk about the page. Restoring the comment that was removed for spoilers. – n8 (☎) 16:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that solves the problem @NateBumber! Thank you.

Epsilon📯 📂

16:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

User 120.20.172.45, you just mentioned the exact quote itself. He says he’s already written “some” of them. As in more than one. Back when RTD was first announced in late 2021, he was announced as heading “the 60th anniversary celebrations and series beyond”. Now back then it was assumed that there was only 1 special, so it was assumed that “some of the episodes” meant that one special and a few of the Series 14 episodes. Now that it has been revealed that there are three 60th anniversary specials, it is obvious that “some of the episodes” combined with the fact that RTD is heading the 60th anniversary, means that RTD wrote all 3 60th anniversary specials. It is as simple as that. —Danniesen ☎ 18:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, you cannot answer questions without spoilers that can only be answered with spoilers. So the admining team just have to live with it for cases such as this one. Sorry if that sounded harsh, but I have after all been on this Wiki quite some time, so have a lot of other users who quite frequently edit these pages, and this rule is quite the range of highly pathetic. Nobody on God’s green Earth takes spoilers this seriously. I can speak for several people when I say that the spoiler policy is taken way too far. There are cases for spoilers to be disallowed in several places for sure, but take the casting news for S14 going forward. An entire year, plus some, we can’t even make a single mention of anything regarding the future, outside of S14’s page. This Wiki will have to seriously rethink a few of the rules for the foreseeable future. Otherwise this Wiki won’t be able to live. Best regards to you. —Danniesen ☎ 19:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Care to add that as a thread for the list Danniesen? Najawin ☎ 20:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. —Danniesen ☎ 20:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Danniesen just wanna say I completely agree with you about the spoiler policies, and that I can safely say that a lot of edtors I've spoken to are all getting very sick of the spoiler policies...

Epsilon📯 📂

21:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as the actual discussion goes, I think it's pretty clearly insinuated by the sources and, well, all of the discussion surrounding the specials that RTD is writing them. But, I would agree that it's not explicitly stated. So I could see some sort of compromise here, like a {{fact}} tag after listing him for all three specials. Najawin ☎ 21:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Danniesen Your entire argument is "assumed" and "obvious". Where does the source explicitly state that he's written all three? (Glad we agree on the ridiculousness of this "no spoilers" shit, though. I agree with Najawin's comment above, in that it needs to be tagged. 122.199.43.25^{talk to me} 23:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, I would support a tag compromise, I don't think it needs to be tagged. Najawin ☎ 23:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You purposely misread what I said. No, my entire argument is not “assumed”. It is, however, “obvious”. —Danniesen ☎ 05:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, there does not need to be the exact words “I wrote all three" as long as you can apply logic to what meaning, whatever is written down, has in given circumstances. ——Danniesen ☎ 06:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey now, T:FAITH. This blatant misreading of what you said wasn't necessarily on purpose. :> Najawin ☎ 06:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Glad you mentioned T:FAITH. That is another one of the rules I’m getting a little sick of. Not necessarily for this discussion, but it has been an issue in the past with obvious troublemakers. ——Danniesen ☎ 06:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

That one's actually derived from a FANDOM rule. No real changing it. Najawin ☎ 06:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, while I'm not against the most recent edit, it's not at all clear to me that there was consensus to make it. I proposed it as a compromise and the IP user insisted that it was necessary (and, indeed, mischaracterized me as saying it was necessary). Najawin ☎ 23:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it hasn’t been agreed upon. And this constant craving for this IP User for that one page to be exactly that way, without any interest in actually being an editor on here, this being shown by IP User not willing to engage in any editing except for that one single detail, and twice misreading replies on this page, really is telling a lot. —Danniesen ☎ 09:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)