Talk:Season 1 (Doctor Who 2023)

Season 1

Promotion

Talk

Careful . . . spoilers!

This page absolutely does contain spoilers either about the behind-the-scenes or narrative elements of stories which have not yet been published or broadcast. Please see our spoiler policy for our rules governing articles about such subjects.

	Archives: #1

Edit war

Locking article for a day to put a halt to the edit wars. Resolve this issue here without edit warring (and without spoilers, whatever they might be). Shambala108 ☎ 21:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Aw21212121 ☎ 21:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Shame it didn’t get locked before it got reverted to prevent inaccuracy. Danniesen ☎ 22:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Danniesen's interpretation of the recent DWM is correct as far as the writing credit - it's too vague to be used for that. (I mean. I'm sure ultimately we're going to change it to be as it is currently. But what's currently there is not a source.) Najawin ☎ 23:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there’s no doubt that eventually, it will prove true and the page will have to say this, but the wiki should only reflect the latest "truth"… that meaning that even if A would prove untrue upon a certain date and it turned out that B was correct in the end, at the given time until B was proven, the wiki would go with A, as it would be the latest information until disproven. Danniesen ☎ 23:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@ User:Danniesen, as one of the editors who engaged in edit warring, you can't really complain about the state of the article when it was locked. Proper procedure is to contact an admin, not continually revert edits until an admin finally steps in.

This page will be unlocked tomorrow; please resolve this issue here without complaining about how or when it was locked. That is not what this talk page is for. Shambala108 ☎ 03:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@ User:Danniesen These are your claims: we can safely assume who directed an episode based on what's left after the other episodes/directors are assigned, but we cannot safely assume who wrote an episode based on what's left after the other episodes/writers are assigned. That's exactly what you've said. Either the writer is included, or the director is not included. Aw21212121 ☎ 10:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Writer and director are two entirely different things. A writer is not guaranteed a certain spot, but a director is. These days there are two episodes per block (sometimes that includes the special, but most often it does not), which means that if all but one episode have been accounted for, there is one director who only has one episode listed, which means that this director also has the last remaining episode. Also, the episodes in each block are always filmed together, which means that the director of the special only had that one episode on their CV. It’s pretty easy logic. Danniesen ☎ 13:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Davies said he has written four specials for 2023/2024. Three specials for the 60th, leaves the special for Christmas, plus what he's written for Series 14. Concerning the specials, to paraphrase you, that means that if all but one special have been accounted for out of the four Davies has directly said he's written, there is one episode left out after the three anniversary specials, which means that this writer (Davies) also has the last remaining. "It’s pretty easy logic." Concerning "These days there are two episodes per block" has been incorrect since Series 12; Series 13 had two three-episode blocks, 2022 specials were three one-episode blocks, 2023 specials was one three-episode block, and Series 14 had a one-episode block for the Christmas special, proving this false. Would you like to correct that?

@ User:Shambala108 You may be interested in the fact that as soon as the page was unlocked, Danniesen went straight back to reverting despite your warning to them. [1] Aw21212121 ☎ 02:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

So you're violating our spoiler rule here, technically. But the quote that's in a previous version of the page doesn't establish what you're claiming. (I note that it's incomplete, it trails off. It's possible that it does entail what you're saying. But as written in the history it just doesn't establish what you're proposing.) Najawin ☎ 02:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of assumptions regarding the information that is posted on the page. It seems counterproductive to assume that the next series will follow the patterns of previous series, especially when dealing with a new showrunner. One of the reasons we used to have a very strict spoiler policy was that sometimes the information we have prior to release either is incorrect or is changed before the actual airing.

Try to keep assumptions out of this page. Only post what the source actually says. Shambala108 ☎ 03:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

How we we meant to discuss the content without "spoilers"? It's impossible to say "discuss it, but don't discuss anything of it".

The source states that Davies has written the fourth 2023 special. No source states that Donoughue has directed Episode 7. Either way, I would be happy with listing neither until we know either for certain. Aw21212121 ☎ 04:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The source as represented in the edit history does not say that, no. It merely mentions that certain things are on his desk in front of him. If the source actually says that then please actually put that in the hidden text in the article. Najawin ☎ 05:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said, if there's disagreement on the writer, I'm happy for neither to be included. However, the other editor also needs to agree not to include assumptions, instead of edit-warring the minute the page was unlocked. Aw21212121 ☎ 06:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Nah, these are two distinct issues. The writer is flat out wrong given the quote. Can't be in the article at present time. If you want to make your case for why the director also shouldn't be cited as it was, you're free to do so. But the two issues are independent of each other. Najawin ☎ 07:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Because the director isn't sourced, it's that simple. It's based on an assumption already proved wrong. Aw21212121 ☎ 05:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the sources in question? I just spent twenty minutes going through them, they absolutely imply that the director is directing both episodes in question. (Well, with one additional piece of information that isn't present.) 4 and 5 are block 1, originally 2 and 3 were block 3, this was changed to 1 and 3, see next link, now 2 and 6 are are block 4, and block 5's director is the one in question (+final block). Additional piece of info needed is that Special = Block 2, which can be inferred from DWM 590 and DWM, uh, 586? The citations on this page do need to be cleared up though, some of them link to things that have very little to do with what they're claiming, I agree. But you can parse out the implication if you do the footwork on every link. Najawin ☎ 07:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I have read them. And in which of them does it actually state that block 5 is two episodes? Or is that an "inferring" situation too? Aw21212121 ☎ 21:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

We know what block 1 is. We know what block 3 is. We know what block 4 is. We infer what block 2 is from the two DWMs. Thus, given the only block left is block 5, per the source, we know what block 5 is. This is an issue of sheer logic, not of guesswork like your writer attribution was. Obviously this might change - as block 3 did, but the sources we have absolutely imply this at the current time. Najawin ☎ 21:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

So the answer is, yes, it is an assumption; just as I have no source explicitly stating Davies as the writer of the festive special, you too have no source explicitly stating Donoughue as the director of Episode 7, or no source explicitly block 5 is two episodes. Everything here is based on inferring and assuming. Aw21212121 ☎ 21:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No, the answer is, no, it's not an assumption. This is the only possibility given the sources we currently have. If the sources we have are all telling the truth this must be the case. Now, some of them may be wrong. But this is logically entailed from the sources we have. You literally just speculated based on wording and put it down as fact. These are qualitatively different things. Najawin ☎ 21:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight except in keeping with wiki policy. There seems to be a lot of use of the words "imply" and "infer" regarding some of these sources. To quote directly from Series 14 (Doctor Who), "Please also remember to directly quote people, or to exactly characterise their statements. Do not say that someone said something when they really didn't. Work from original quotes — not a paraphrasing of them. When it comes to anything Chris Chibnall, Matt Strevens or any major star of the show says, give their exact quote only. Remember, a part of the production team's job is to tell the truth, but only very narrowly. So this page should contain only what they exactly say." Shambala108 ☎ 22:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Shambala, I'm using the term to refer to material implication, not how the term is colloquially used. Imply as in entail, not as in suggest. Apologies if this was unclear. Najawin ☎ 22:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Nothing has been resolved here, and User:Danniesen and User:Aw21212121 continue to revert each others' edits; therefore this page is locked for a week. If this issue is not resolved by the time the lock expires, any further reverting by these two editors could result in a block. Shambala108 ☎ 01:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

As it happens from the numerous replies in here by User:Najawin and I (and the edit summaries in which I also explained), all I can say is that it would seem that User:Aw21212121 fail to understand how we operate on the wiki and refuse to be taught. This combined with the fact that they also haven’t performed any other edits (one edit total) that isn’t just arguing on this page and in this talk page, leads me to the conclusion that they’re not willing to be a productive member of the wiki and are only looking to argue logic, which in turn makes reversal of constructive edits a clear case of vandalism. And as it happens, removing vandalism is one of the few things that doesn’t make it an edit war. Danniesen ☎ 07:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I'm sympathetic on the director issue, it's like sudoku, you have to do a bit of work. (Or more specifically, it's like truth tables.) But once the reasoning has been provided you need to at least admit these are qualitatively different things. Najawin ☎ 07:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Danniesen, you haven't responded since the page was initially locked, and you've only now returned here because it's locked. As Shambala108 said: use exact quotes. No exact quotes declare the director for Episode 7. Logic does not conform with the quote in the header, logic is not an exact quote. The header is something I'll repeat: "Please also remember to directly quote people, or to exactly characterise their statements. Do not say that someone said something when they really didn't. Work from original quotes — not a paraphrasing of them. When it comes to anything Chris Chibnall, Matt Strevens or any major star of the show says, give their exact quote only. Remember, a part of the production team's job is to tell the truth, but only very narrowly. So this page should contain only what they exactly say." This is very clear. Very. No paraphrasing. No saying something that hasn't been said. Original quotes.

(Also to note, the "Chris Chibnall, Matt Strevens" links in the header should be updated for S14.) Aw21212121 ☎ 08:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Logic is also a big part of it, and working from experience, this concludes that there can only be one director for the remaining episode. That is how it works. It should also be noted that we have used logical conclusions in the past as well, so the idea that we should not all of a sudden because you don’t feel for it is outlandish. And I repeat, all you’ve been doing since your initial first edit has been to argue here. Plenty of time to do something on the wiki and you’ve only waited it out here on this page. Now if you had a lot of valuable editing on the wiki, I might have just taken you more seriously. But you’ve only been arguing on this case. Danniesen ☎ 08:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

On another note, I agree that the Instructions Template should be updated with new (old) names as it’s no longer Chibnall and Strevens in charge. Danniesen ☎ 08:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It's an assumption based on filming blocks from four years ago; do you have a source that this series' production blocks (bar block 2) are all two episodes? I could just as well assume that any of the existing blocks could end up being three episodes. The information warning on the page, and the administrator who has contributed here, are both very direct in the clarification to only use direct quotes. I am not arguing, I am discussing the only issue I find relevant at this current point in time. Aw21212121 ☎ 09:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear… this is just going around in circles. Danniesen ☎ 09:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed; there is clearly no consensus. But if we listen to the admins, quoting Shambala108: "Try to keep assumptions out of this page. Only post what the source actually says." Aw21212121 ☎ 09:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No assumptions were made. It’s a logical conclusion. But fine. Danniesen ☎ 09:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I think my writer addition is a logical conclusion, you disagree. You think your director addition is a logical conclusion, I disagree. Boiling it down, we're just arguing about the same thing. Aw21212121 ☎ 10:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

As Najawin (and I myself) pointed out… no, they’re not the same thing. Danniesen ☎ 10:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

And that is your opinion. Aw21212121 ☎ 11:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No. That is factual. Danniesen ☎ 11:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Danniesen please re-familiarize yourself with Tardis:No personal attacks. Your behavior to a new editor here is giving a very false impression about how we want to treat new editors. Shambala108 ☎ 15:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Not everything is a personal attack. You can have an argument with someone and even say their stance is incorrect without it being a personal attack. New user or not. I’m sorry, but does it not raise any alarms with you that a user does not interact with the wiki other than to undo one specific edit over and over, even when explanations are given (by two different users even)? Danniesen ☎ 15:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"It's an assumption based on filming blocks from four years ago; do you have a source that this series' production blocks (bar block 2) are all two episodes?"

No it's not. This is why I asked whether you actually read the sources. They explicitly say which episodes are parts of which blocks, and all but block 5 are accounted for. Whether or not these sources end up being wrong is irrelevant, things change, it's something we have to deal with in editing pages like this. But at the present time this is the best information we have, and it logically entails the conclusion Danniesen has placed on the page. Nobody is assuming things. And quite frankly this seems to me to be an archetypal T:POINT violation. Najawin ☎ 17:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No offense, but Shambala108 is absolutely right. I'm feeling attacked for presenting an opinion, and being confronted with what is essentially ownership of this page, and Danniesen's refusal to discuss only except when the page is locked; he presented not one further comment after the page became available for editing again, and only returned after his first edit after the page was unlocked was to revert.

Those episodes belong to those blocks per the sources, yes. But nothing specifies that only those episodes belong to each block; they could very well include additional episodes. None of these sources state "Block X includes only Episodes Y and Z", and, as already quoted in this discussion, is based solely on blocks having two episodes each, an event that has not happened since 2019. The source concerning Block 5 states that it contains the finale, but it doesn't actually state anything else. I've used the sources elsewhere, for content elsewhere, so you bet I've read them. It doesn't matter if it "logically entails" anything; logically entails directly goes against the warning on this very article's page: use only direct quotations, not assumptions. Can you quote what part of the warning on this article supports you? Aw21212121 ☎ 07:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I’ve tried to explain to you a few times. You won’t listen to it. And yes, we absolutely also use logic to fill in blanks when there is absolutely no other option for a certain subject. We’ve done it before, and it’ll no doubt be done again in the future. The source doesn’t need to explicitly say "only" for us to be able to work it out. There are two episodes per block (bar Block 2) and your removal of that is absolutely counterproductive of that. There are 5 blocks total and each of them contains two episodes except Block 2 which is the special (which often gets a block for itself). Plus, a block is always filmed together, and since we know from filming what has been done when, this concludes what I have presented to you even further. Danniesen ☎ 07:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Assumptions, logic, same thing; the very definition of a "logical assumption" is "an idea that can be inferred, or identified, in a text without the writer stating it in an obvious way". You have no source stating that there are definitively two episodes per block. If I can leave the Christmas special writer cell empty (given the disputed "logic"), then you can leave the Episode 7 director cell empty (given the disputed "logic"). You're going around in circles, solely because you very clearly own this page and will not listen to any other opinion without personally attacking them. Is this what you do to every editor you disagree with? This page's history certainly shows so. Aw21212121 ☎ 07:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No. Assumptions and logic are not the same thing. The sources themselves mentioning two specific episodes is source enough that there are two episodes per block. Otherwise they would include the bit “and one other unidentified episode”. This is literally how they work. It was previously believed that Block 2 would consist of two episodes (the special and one other episode) but since filming of that happened, this was proven to not be the case. A source will say exactly the amount of episodes with simply “Episode X and Y”. Your case about the special wasn’t “disputed logic”, it plain and clear just wasn’t said anywhere in the presented source. No, no one says I own the page, but I do keep up with what’s happening around the future of the show and update accordingly. I put a lot of work into these pages specifically because I want it to be accurate. I only undo something other people do if it’s inaccurate to what we know. I don’t go around attacking people either, no. I simply uphold it. And if someone repeatedly does it a disservice, I do take action. Danniesen ☎ 07:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"But nothing specifies that only those episodes belong to each block;"

I am begging you to read the sources. They absolutely do. One of them cites someone's linkedin that literally says that a specific block consists of the specific episodes in question. Two more are tracking someone's CV based on filming blocks in two episode increments. Whether or not these sources are accurate is beside the point.

I'm not sure why logical entailment is irrelevant. It's literally impossible for the aforementioned premises to be true and the conclusion to be false if we're dealing with logical entailment. In effect you're using abduction, I'm using deduction, that's why there's a difference. Again, this feels like a textbook T:POINT violation. And I want to stress, I barely edit series pages. Also, you know, I think User:Danniesen and I have been getting on each others' nerves a bit recently. This edit war drew me to this discussion, it isn't personal in any way. I can attest that Danniesen is correct as a matter of historical practice, we absolutely do this sort of, hmm, can't recall the phrase, thread chasing? T:BOUND very much applies. (Ooh, fun, is this the first time I get to cite our new version of T:BOUND except as reminding myself that it exists when I don't like something?! Exciting!) Najawin ☎ 08:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I recognize that we're not going to agree. But given both of your own admittions that you own the page, that it's yours, and nobody other than you can make substantial edits, sure. Aw21212121 ☎ 11:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

None of us have remotely said this. Danniesen ☎ 11:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, but you have. You've been warned by an admin for edit-warring, personal attacks, and to use only sourced content, but even the admin is wrong, in all of these. You are above such rules and such warnings, even from admins. You are the Creators, the Overlords, the AboveAdministrators. This page is yours and yours alone. You contribute, nobody else can. This is your own admission. Aw21212121 ☎ 11:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Nothing remotely like this was said anywhere. Danniesen ☎ 11:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies, AboveAdministrator Danniesen. Of course, I am wrong, I wouldn't dare to question you. Aw21212121 ☎ 11:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

My dear friend, no one is above anyone here. Even an admin isn’t always right. Even they aren’t above anyone here. No one said you can’t say anything and no one said you can’t edit. But do expect an edit to be reverted when it’s incorrect and when given multiple layers of evidence to why. Danniesen ☎ 12:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course. I have slighted you. The admin is wrong, I am wrong, everyone else that edits here is wrong. You are the AboveAdministrator, our Overlord. You say I am wrong? Then I am wrong. Your word is Law. Your evidence? The very Word that created what we are. My evidence? Mere trash, not even the racoons would eat it. Who am I to dare question you, Lord Danniesen? Aw21212121 ☎ 12:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is noted. No I am not always right. There are loads of times where I am dead wrong on something, but in this case I happen to be correct. Even Najawin has noted that. And has presented lots of reasons as to why. Danniesen ☎ 12:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course. Anything you say is true. You say you are correct, then you are correct. No other could ever be at your level of understanding, we could only dream of that. Aw21212121 ☎ 12:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"But given both of your own admittions that you own the page, that it's yours, and nobody other than you can make substantial edits, sure."

I'm rather confident I implied the opposite of this, that I don't substantially edit series pages. Politely, can you engage with the rest of the comment there rather than accusing me of making personal attacks (which I didn't make on this talk page - what a refreshing change of pace), edit-warring, or even using content that wasn't sourced? (Shambala's comment, as I understand it, was a general point of information about the rules. Not criticism about any one party specifically.) Do you think you're engaging in deduction? Do you think the premises in my deductive inference are so disjointed that the argument is invalid rather than unsound? What issue do you have here? Najawin ☎ 18:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, Overlord Najawin, you are the Creator, the One, the Lawmaker. You could never have done anything I listed as an accusation, the wrong belongs entirely to me. I am such a disturbance to your wonderful editing, I dare not question your edits or deductive inference, your Laws are second to none, the equivalent of the Ten Commandments! Aw21212121 ☎ 21:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Well obviously I didn't engage in an edit war or use content on it that wasn't sourced, since I literally didn't edit the page. Are you willing to engage in discussion here? I've actually tried to explain the difference between the two issues and you've just taken offense to it for some reason and accused me of viewing the page as something I own, which just isn't true. Najawin ☎ 21:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Aw21212121 Your tone is really not called for in this situation. Please also read Tardis:No personal attacks and Tardis:Discussion policy. Attack the point, not the person. Can we manage this?
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 22:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, now I would normally absolutely agreed with you, Soto. But Danniesen has expressly stated that administrators here are wrong, and that his actions supercede any warning they've received, so I must submit to Danniesen's domination here. Unfortunately, it's that simple. Aw21212121 ☎ 08:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I said that admins are not always right, and that no one is really above the other, which is true. I even said that there are times where I am absolutely wrong. Danniesen ☎ 08:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Sir, yes, sir. Anything you say is the truth, sir. Aw21212121 ☎ 08:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

You've made it clear that you don't want to talk to Danniesen. Whatever. Talk to me in that case. Could you address the points I've made above like I've been asking you to do? Najawin ☎ 18:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Aw21212121, this is a formal admin warning that you need to stop with the passive aggressive tone and actually engage with the arguments being presented to you. Your recent messages not helpful or productive and are only hindering the resolution of this issue. If you continue with your current tone, I will have to block you for violating the spirit of T:NPA, particuarly as you've already received a less formal warning from another admin which you have stated that you will disregard. Bongo50 ☎ 19:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Nah, we're not doing this. You don't get to refuse to have a discussion for 5 days and then remove the content as soon as the page stops being protected, saying that you're doing so because of a "warning" on the talk page. This is just a blatant rules violation. Either have the discussion you refused to have for the past five days or sod off. And to any admins who see this, might I recommend a block? The user was explicitly warned and refused to try to resolve this issue - instead circumventing the process by waiting for the page protection to expire. Najawin ☎ 03:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, they've made it clear that they're just not willing to discuss this. Block them. Najawin ☎ 03:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

"You don't get to refuse to have a discussion for 5 days and then remove the content as soon as the page stops being protected" So, what Danniesen did the first time is was protected, right? Aw21212121 ☎ 04:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

No? User:Danniesen engaged in discussion on this talk page during the time it was protected, pretty much throughout the entire time. Please, go look at the history and the talk page! It was locked from 21:24 on May 25 to 21:06 on May 26. Danniesen commented three times in that time period, once more than you, and had the last comment prior to the page being unlocked.

I'm unsure why you're so focused on User:Danniesen's conduct here. You're violating wiki policies, full stop. Whether or not they've done so is irrelevant. Your refusal to discuss this change for five days before making a change after the protection wears off, accusing someone else of doing the same - something that just isn't true - all of this being prompted by someone else removing one of your edits originally, and you repeatedly insisting that we think that we own this page and that nobody but us can edit it? These things suggest that this is an archetypal case of T:POINT and T:BOUND. Which has been explained to you multiple times, with admins warning you. Let me even quote T:POINT here:

If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content, find a valid source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source, [do not] summarily remove from that page or other pages everything which appears to be unsourced.

This is a potentially blockable offense, and I've repeatedly tried to point out to you that you've got an issue here. Can you try to have a serious discussion about this topic without insisting over and over that someone else has aggrieved you? Najawin ☎ 04:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR version? (Also you completely misread what I said: while the page was unprotected the last time, Danniesen did not contribute a single post of discussion here.) Aw21212121 ☎ 04:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR: Read what I wrote, it's not long.

Moreover, I did not misread what you said, you said:

"You don't get to refuse to have a discussion for 5 days and then remove the content as soon as the page stops being protected" So, what Danniesen did the first time is was protected, right?

You're insisting that he didn't respond while it was protected, which he did. The issue here is that you refuse to discuss the issue in blatant violation of our policies and left the discussion for five days in an attempt to avoid having that discussion. Najawin ☎ 04:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

As soon as the page stopped being protected, he removed the content I added. Really, do catch up, buddy. He did not post once to this talk page while the page had been unlocked from its previous protection, and only returned upon its second protection; prove me wrong. Aw21212121 ☎ 04:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This just isn't what you said. It's right there, black and white. Now do you care to actually have this conversation, or are you going to keep refusing it, like you did for the past five days? Najawin ☎ 04:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Interpret it in whatever variation of English you've liked. I've had my discussion, I've said my piece and stated the very definition of assumptions and logic, it's on you if you don't like it. Aw21212121 ☎ 04:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

In those days this page has been locked I have both engaged with you (I have tried, that is) AND I have been engaging with the rest of the wiki. What have you been doing? Silently waited until the page was unlocked so you could undo it AGAIN. No engagement anywhere else on wiki. Danniesen ☎ 07:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

So, exactly what you did. The only topic of interest I have at the moment on this wiki is this page. Are you gatekeeping and gaslighting based on what people edit? That will not be tolerated. Aw21212121 ☎ 07:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly. You’re not reading what I wrote. I have engaged and discussed on top of editing the rest of the wiki. And no, you’re free to edit whatever you want, whenever you want, but it’s very convenient that the only single interest you have is doing this one thing. Danniesen ☎ 07:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The reason I haven’t engaged on here in the last 5 days is exactly what Najawin said above. You made it clear that you didn’t want a serious discussion with me. Danniesen ☎ 08:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh look, a new edit war. Why does it even matter this much? It's not an appendage measuring contest. — Fractal Doctor @ 21:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

No. You are correct. It is not that. However, it does matter that this wiki displays correct information (the latest currently available facts) rather than displaying false information. Danniesen ☎ 21:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Then can someone make a decision and put an end to the tedious edit wars? Would be nice. — Fractal Doctor @ 22:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Just seen that the issue's been resolved. My bad, and apologies if my post here came off negatively. Just frustrating seeing edit wars go in circles. — Fractal Doctor @ 22:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries. It was also very frustrating on my end. And I’m sure for others as well. Danniesen ☎ 22:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Title

Recent news suggests that this series will not be titled series 14, but season 1. This presents a problem with naming, as there is already a Doctor Who season 1 - I think the most logical change would be to rename this article "Season 1 (Doctor Who) (2024)" and the existing Season 1 (Doctor Who) article to "Season 1 (Doctor Who) (1963)" (and likewise rename the current season 2 and series 15 articles) but if anyone has any better ideas, feel free to discuss. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 175.39.68.66 (talk • contribs) .

See Forum:2023 Naming Scheme Reset. Najawin ☎ 06:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Promotion subpage

Want to clarify something about Series 14 (Doctor Who)/Promotion:

It's not about the length of the content on the page. It doesn't matter that it's shorter than the Promotion section on 2023 specials, as that page should be split.

Forum:Temporary forums/Subpages 2.0#The Optional Add-Ons set up that we can have /Promotion subpages, of any length. Transcending them completely undoes why we use subpages in the first place, as it is not about the length of the article. And all the formatting issues aside.

Now the reason we don't yet have 2023 specials/Promotion... is because these subpages require a lot of effort. When I moved material off Series 14 (Doctor Who) to make Series 14 (Doctor Who)/Promotion, I broke a lot of citations which other users caught and fixed. (Sorry about that to the editors who fixed it...!) It just takes a lot of time to manually go through the citations.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

12:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

All done! Refs were fixed in about two minutes, split done in about four. Cheers. :) Aw21212121 ☎ 13:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Title reveal clips

Just wondering - is there any particular way we can archive the episode title reveal clips that were posted on the official BBC Doctor Who twitter account? As far as I know, they were exclusive to that platform and have since been edited into one reel for Instagram too (and possibly elsewhere). Do these count as valid, non-valid, or just promotional clips we can add to their respective episode page? What's the thinking? × Fractal • 17:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

They are on YouTube as well. Bongo will be uploading it eventually. As for whether they’re in the episodes themselves, who knows. So far they’re only promotional. I’d imagine the titles have been added to the clips specifically for the reveal. Danniesen ☎ 18:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

See Forum:Temporary forums/Subpages 2.0. It shouldn't go on the episode page, it should go here, on a subpage for promotion for the series. Najawin ☎ 23:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Audience Appreciation Index scores

Is there any reason why the Audience Appreciation Index scores that every episode has always received isn't being added to the respective episode articles anymore? 122.151.59.176^{talk to me} 02:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)