Talk:Series 10 (Doctor Who 2005)

Source contradictions

A problem has occurred on who has written the sixth episode of the Series. French CV on Laurent Maurel says that said episode was written by <removed per Tardis:Spoiler policy>. A different source, namely Radio Times, had labelled <removed per Tardis:Spoiler policy> as co-writers of said episode. What do we do in such case? --DCLM ☎ 20:30, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

Can someone help explain this? --DCLM ☎ 14:03, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

<removed per Tardis:Spoiler policy> is the director. 82.3.146.201^{talk to me} 18:02, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

You can't just conclude it like that. Radio Times says differently. --DCLM ☎ 18:15, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

And why would the CV list the director over the writer? --DCLM ☎ 18:17, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

He's a director, it says h's the director and he's not the writer... conclusive. 82.3.146.201^{talk to me} 18:24, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

It does not say so. --DCLM ☎ 19:46, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

Radio Times says so, I'd rather go with RT saying a director with directorial experiences is directing it rather than a quite self-run site saying that a director is writing it. 82.3.146.201^{talk to me} 19:58, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

I can't see that. I've read it up and down. Can't see it. And in any case, why didn't you add <removed per Tardis:Spoiler policy> as the director? --DCLM ☎ 11:35, February 7, 2017 (UTC)

The Sun

Going to put this here so there's a record: The Sun is not a valid source for real world articles. Any post on this page that uses The Sun as its source will be removed. Shambala108 ☎ 03:24, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

Series 10 page

There is a need to clear up a couple of things regarding this page and Tardis:Spoiler policy.

• Everything posted to the series 10 page must have a source. Anything that doesn't have a valid source will be removed. Repeated adding of unsourced material even after it has been removed is a violation of T:NO WARS and could lead to a block.
• Do not, I repeat, do not post spoiler information in edit summaries. Edit summaries are visible to everyone; posting spoilers in the edit summary violates Tardis:Spoiler policy. Repeated violations of this nature could lead to a block.

Thanks for your attention. Shambala108 ☎ 00:11, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

"First <removed per Tardis:Spoiler policy> since series 3?"

Doesn't last series' Face the Raven, Heaven Sent, and Hell Bent constitute a three parter? TheTARDIScontroller ☎ 07:12, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

No. Face the Raven, though connecting to Heaven Sent and Hell Bent, is a single-story. Heaven Sent leads into Hell Bent. Those two are a two-parter. --DCLM ☎ 14:37, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

Leak

Admins... Episode 3 has apparently been leaked on iTunes under the name of the previous episode Smile. Be careful. --DCLM ☎ 12:27, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

Well, Spoiler policy here is don't create an article for the episode until 8.30pm (it finishes airing at 8.10pm, and that's the next bottom of the hour). I'm sure if anyone posts it early it'll be deleted and appropriate action taken.  Digifiend  Talk  PR/SS  KR  MH  Toku  JD  Garo  TH  CG  UM  Logos  CLG  DW  15:01, 29/4/2017 

Just thought I should alert you. :D --DCLM ☎ 16:32, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

Source contradictions 2

DWM 512 and <link removed per Tardis:Spoiler policy> the Radio Times source gives two different answers as to who wrote episodes 6 and 7. -- Tybort (talk page) 09:13, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

What?

I <removed per Tardis:Spoiler policy> (which is what they are) and I return 1 hour later to find the page protected and my edits reverted. Can somebody please correct the episode table please. Mysterious Editor ☎ 10:48, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

The claims were unsourced. Even if something is true it needs sources. Plus, it was only partially true. --DCLM ☎ 11:42, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

It's been changed back now. Why? It IS <removed per Tardis:Spoiler policy>, and, as far as I can see, no new sources have been added since you said they needed a source. 217.43.40.225^{talk to me} 14:39, May 7, 2017 (UTC)

Considering the ending of this episode, and the fact that we know what the next episode will be a about (I can't say it here, but just if you already know), surely not changing it back would be like, say, not counting The Impossible Astronaut as the same story as Day of the Moon, for instance (that is to say, really silly). 31.49.2.154^{talk to me} 20:06, May 27, 2017 (UTC)

PS: Hope that doesn't count as a spoiler. I worded it as carefully as I could to ONLY refer to tonight's episode, and not say the thing that was edited out of the previous messages. 31.49.2.154^{talk to me} 20:07, May 27, 2017 (UTC)

OK so it's been fixed now... but at the cost of the formatting of the page! The table's broken. 31.49.2.154^{talk to me} 21:25, May 27, 2017 (UTC)

Directors

The episode list still has TBA listed for several directors. I thought the BBC had announced them by way of DWM? 23skidoo ☎ 14:37, May 7, 2017 (UTC)

• I see they've been added. Thanks! 23skidoo ☎ 03:01, May 14, 2017 (UTC)

Dates

Just did a little bit of light clean-up. We need to remember to always include the year when mentioning dates. I just fixed a scenario where events in April 2017 (screening of The Pilot) and April 2016 (announcement of Bill) were mentioned literally back to back just month and day, but without the year there was no context of time. 23skidoo ☎ 12:43, May 15, 2017 (UTC)

Alpha Centurai

Shouldn't the voice of Alpha Centurai be listed as a recurring rather than guest character?? MadeIndescribable ☎ 22:13, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

According to policy in T:CAST, a character is recurring if they're in multiple stories, but only when they're less than five years apart. So going by that, I think Churchman is "recurring" in seasons 9 and 11, but "guest" in Empress of Mars, which is 43 years after The Monster of Peladon. -- Tybort (talk page) 22:24, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

Rumours

Hey add that Pearl Mackie leaving and David Bradley's First Doctor returning were both proven true please and thanks. 213.123.3.22^{talk to me} 20:04, July 1, 2017 (UTC)

Spoilers are not allowed on talk pages

I would like to remind that, no matter how good the intentions are, spoilers are disallowed on talk pages. Even spoilers for Series 10, including yet unaired episodes if any, are not allowed here. Even more so for any potential future series. Please collect all your fascinating links locally until the page for the next series is created. If there is already definitive information to put there (and I'm not saying there isn't), the page should be created in due time. Thank you for your cooperation. Amorkuz ☎ 21:59, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

Banners should specify status of the 2017 Christmas special

I wonder if it might be worth adding a line to the spoiler warnings on the banner that the 2017 Christmas special is going to be included in the Series 10 article, so the spoiler policy remains in effect until then? Might save a bit of confusion for newbies or casual readers/editors who don't realize how this wiki works. For example, there may be those who think the special should be part of Series 11, etc. 23skidoo ☎ 13:18, July 9, 2017 (UTC)

<Removed by an admin as per T:SPOIL> 89.111.70.58^{talk to me} 21:46, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Just going to add, that if the currently unaired Christmas special is considered part of series 10, then the page still needs the spoiler tags. Right now there is quite a bit of spoiler-y information in at least the lead if not the rest of the article. Shambala108 ☎ 02:04, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

3-parter

Why did you change it back exstrems the pyramid at the end of the world and lie of the land is a three parter they are not single episodes – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberdalek12 (talk • contribs) .

No they are not. They are 3 connected single episode stories. Not one 3-parter. And remember to create a new section when starting a new topic. And remember to sign your comments. --DCLM ☎ 20:28, December 6, 2019 (UTC)

Oh blimey, not this again. For both of your informations, there is a mammoth thread currently going on about this very topic. It's not over yet, but what is clear is this: "When do we call something a two- or three-parters rather than connected, but singular, episodes?" is not a question that has an objectively correct answer. Whatever policy we settle on in that thread will just be an arbitrary choice, akin to "TARDIS vs. Tardis" and "K9 vs. K-9". --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:41, December 6, 2019 (UTC)

Chill out. I was informing about why it was reverted and what current politics are until settled completely. --DCLM ☎ 20:45, December 6, 2019 (UTC)