Talk:Series 7 (Doctor Who 2005)

	Archives: #1, #2, #3

Final warning to all Users about Doctor Who TV

This is a one and only warning regarding Doctor Who TV.

It cannot be used as a source. The only Doctor Who related sites that can be used are Gallifrey Base (accessible via the news feed on the front page) and the official website.

All casting, filming, rumours must come from media (newspapers etc) and news sites (digital spy) - where everything has a base source. Doctor Who TV uses sources that are 'fans', with nothing to back them up. If they do have a source, please link via the source and not Doctor Who TV. MM/Want to talk? 22:19, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well someone keeps uploading it as a source and creating rumors. Whoever is doing this needs a ip ban... I'm starting to lose my calm... -114.76.1.117

The episode 7 thing that got reverted twice recently did have a source, they just neglected to link to it. I've now added said source (a website of a crew member which has a CV on it - a first party source). They don't always report bullshit.  Digifiend  Talk  PR/SS  KR  MH  Toku  JD  Garo  TH  CG  UM  Logos  CLG  DW  17:32,10/8/2012 

If I may ask is there an actual black and white list of banned sources? At one point I believe I put the John Fay report (which I would have cited) which uses Fay's CV as a source; it should be noted that CVs have been used by other sites such as the Doctor Who News Page. Not everyone is intimately familiar with how ever single website is operated. Maybe MM (an admin?) could be so kind as to create a list of sources that should not be used. Maybe some sort of sticky can be created when one clicks the Edit button. 70.72.211.35^{talk to me} 21:42, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Clara Oswin

Is the Mirror really a suitable source? Tabloids print wrong info all the time. The Sun's TV Magazine included the same name in an article, but in light of Asylum of the Daleks, in which Jenna-Louise plays somebody called Oswin Oswald, it seems that Clara Oswin was incorrect. Either they're different characters, or she's not called Clara at all.  Digifiend  Talk  PR/SS  KR  MH  Toku  JD  Garo  TH  CG  UM  Logos  CLG  DW  19:40,9/1/2012 

And sure enough, turned out to be Clara Oswald.  Digifiend  Talk  PR/SS  KR  MH  Toku  JD  Garo  TH  CG  UM  Logos  CLG  DW  01:52,12/26/2012 

Clara *Oswin* Oswald, as seen on her tombstone.Thor214 ☎ 01:57, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Grammatic tenses

Just wondered, since the series has now started airing, should the relevant parts of the article be converted to past tense, e.g. "Series 7 began airing on the 1st of September 2012" rather than "Series 7 will begin airing..."; "Toby Whithouse wrote episode 3" rather than "Whithouse will write..."? Or do we wait for the last episode to air before converting the article? I'd be happy to do the editing; just wanted to check before rushing in there. The Colclough ☎ 18:48, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Arcs / Recurring Themes

So, given the season-arc nature of the series, and the prevalent themes that crop up over the course of a season, I wonder if perhaps the revived series' season pages should describe the relevant arc and/or theme(s) present in the series. The ones that come to mind I've listed below:

• Series 1: "Bad Wolf"
• Series 2: Torchwood
• Series 3: Vote Harold Saxon
• Series 4: DoctorDonna, Disappearing Bees, There's Something On Your Back
• 2009 Specials: He Will Knock Four Times
• Series 5: Cracks in Time
• Series 6: Silence Will Fall, Death of the Doctor
• Series 7: Christmas, Flickering Lights

Obviously, not all of these necessarily warrant mention, but some are deliberate, relevant season arcs (Bad Wolf, Vote Harold Saxon, DoctorDonna) that have more to do with the season as a whole than they do individual episodes.

As it is, almost all of the season pages are unique (read: inconsistent) and could use some reorganization, so I thought it might be good to bring up the possibility of a Themes section as we approach a three-month hiatus and can afford to do some spring cleaning. Thoughts? d ●•· 16:40, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

"Introduction of Clara Oswin" needs to be reworded

As I understand the policies here, we don't announce character names, etc until the episode airs. The statement "Introduction of Clara Oswin" next to the Christmas special therefore is improper, plus may be outdated since presumably it was added before Asylum of the Daleks raised a question mark as to whether that might be the true introduction to the character (putting aside controversy regarding the name, remembering that the BBC has yet to officially confirm the character's name going forward from the Christmas Special). It should be removed and perhaps replaced with "Jenna-Louise Coleman joins as a series regular." With "Introduction of "Jenna-Louise Coleman" added to Asylum's entry - note I didn't say mention the character's name as we do not know yet whether she'll play a new character or Oswin Oswald. 70.72.211.35^{talk to me} 17:40, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I said above - Clara Oswin is wrong. Surely if anything, it would be Clara Oswald (an ancestor of Oswin, perhaps? We can only speculate so far). Fact is, her surname is unknown and shouldn't be on the page.  Digifiend  Talk  PR/SS  KR  MH  Toku  JD  Garo  TH  CG  UM  Logos  CLG  DW  00:58,10/7/2012 

Then why can't somebody change it? I tried, but was reverted by minimitch without a word of explanation. Graske of the mandragora ☎ 07:40, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

That was an accident, I've not had time to change it/state why. I saw you had changed it to say 'Jenna Louise Coleman' and for some reason I thought 'we know it's Clara' and it was not until I reverted I realised my mistake. I am sorry. MM/Want to talk? 09:31, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I realise you're busy, and it's not as if I was inconvenienced at all. Graske of the mandragora ☎ 14:29, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Due to wibbly-wobbly timey-whimey things, I believe they can be considered the same person, especially with the kitchen comment on the TARDIS (avoiding a "spoiler" for those who haven't watched it yet), and the headstone (Clara Oswin Oswald). Thor214 ☎ 02:02, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

6 or N/A?

Quite possibly the most silly, semantic question to ask, but... should we be listing the midseason Christmas special as Episode 6, or "N/A"? (And likewise, the spring premiere as 7 or 6, etc.) d ●•· 14:57, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

since the christmas special introduces a new regular companion, and therefore is obviously part of the main narrative flow of the series, i personally think it makes more sense to call it '6', and the spring premiere '7'. The Colclough ☎ 17:48, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Christmas specials are not part of the overall series; that's why they're called specials. Duh. There's no reason to consider the Christmas special episode 6, rather then just N/A or X. --Bold Clone 19:27, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Great Detective

Just wondering why The Great Detective has been removed from the list of Mini-Episodes? When introducing it, Matt Smith himself called it a Minisode (apparently that's what they're called now)? Geek Mythology ☎ 23:02, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

All episodes are in order of air date. It has just been moved to after 'Autumn half' and before' Christmas special'. It is still under the heading 'mini-episodes'. MM/Want to talk? 23:12, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just seen that, and I understand having them in order of broadcast, but have to admit that all the different sections does seem to make it a bit crowded and untidy. Well, thats my opinion anyway. Geek Mythology ☎ 23:17, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

Length of the Christmas Special in "Overview"

Now that we know how long the Christmas Special is, "although it is believed that the Christmas Special will be sixty minutes" can be changed to "although the Christmas Special is 60 minutes. Thor214 ☎ 01:54, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Rumours

I don't really see why "rumours" need sources. In fact, the Mirriam Webster definition of a rumour is: "talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source." I think we should either be a bit looser on the rules of what can go into Rumours, or change/remove the section. If we decide to change the section, that means that it might contain similar information but will only include unreleased information that has been confirmed, which is a bit boring. I vote the rumours section actually becomes a rumours section and we include whatever the people thinkas a whole, no matter how ridiculous the rumours are. People do get a spoiler alert message for this page, right? So this should be the one page where we can put spoilers and rumours of all kinds (but only in the spoiler section of course - sort of like how we can put out-of-universe information in the Behind the Scenes section). Is there any way we can cover the rumours section so that people have to do some sort of action to view it? Like maybe making the text white and telling them to highlight it to view it. That way people who don't like spoilers don't have to see them. SmallerOnTheOutside ☎ 18:30, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers are considered (for the purpose of this wiki) things that have not yet occurred. There are no spoiler alerts so far as I am aware of because this is a fact-based wiki rather than a speculative wiki. There are plenty of sites for rumours and spoilers as this wiki defines them. Keep factual data here. Most rumours also lack proper sources, and as such, are unfit for inclusion in this wiki. Thor214 ☎ 23:38, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

So why is there a spoiler section? SmallerOnTheOutside ☎ 23:41, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

I have no clue. Here is a warning about spoilers on this wiki - "Spoilers aren't cool. We have a strict definition of "spoiler" that you may find a bit unusual. Basically, a spoiler, to us, is anything that comes from a story which has not been released yet. So, even if you've got some info from a BBC press release or official trailer, it basically can't be referenced here. In other words, you gotta wait until the episode has finished its premiere broadcast to start editing about its contents. Please check the spoiler policy for more details." Thor214 ☎ 23:45, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

And that is just why I'm addressing this issue. We have a strict no-spoiler policy but yet we have a section dedicated to rumours and spoilers. Either the rumour section should be deleted (you will be deleted) or we make it the only place where spoilers are allowed. As I understand it, it does seem that, according to TARDIS policy, there shouldn't be a rumours section at all. But we should wait for someone else's opinion. Preferably an administrator. Or at least someone who's been editing for over 2 weeks. SmallerOnTheOutside ☎ 23:55, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

I agree the issue needs to be discussed, as it contradicts itself on this wiki.Thor214 ☎ 23:57, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, also, this entire page is littered with spoilers by TARDIS's definition. You may noticed that the first time you open this page, it warns you that there may be spoilers and you get to choose whether to continue or not. That does seem like a good indicator that spoilers are allowed on this page. SmallerOnTheOutside ☎ 23:55, December 30, 2012 (UTC)