This list is a current featured list candidate. A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. After the list has been promoted or archived, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FLC closes.
Q: Why are early series called seasons? In British English we have TV series.
A: Most sites, such as BBC's Classic Episode Guide and A Brief History, as well as most Doctor Who reference books, use the term "season" for the classic "series". There's a longer discussion here. This has links to the previous discussions.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on August 29, 2011.
As of right now, the following sections remain to be cited(remove and update timestamp):
Series 3
Series 4
Series 6
Series 7
Series 8
Specials (2008-2010)
Specials (2013)
Specials (2022)
Tenth Doctor (partially)
@OlifanofmrTennant and Alex 21: I think the current prose is good enough, or will be with a few minor tweaks. When this is done, we should nom it for FL- so I wanted to as you both if you think so too, and if you would like to co-nom it, as Alex is the largest contributor, and Oli is the third largest, and has also been adding refs recently. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The body prose is fine but the lead isn’t. It’s a lot of explaining the specific details (I.e the numbering system) and not really an overview of the list itself. Unless you want to do it I’ll have something written soon enough Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)16:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the same issue with the lead when we were discussing the feasibility of this potential topic. I remember it being a critique in a failed similar featured list candidate of mine (in terms of having the list split across decades). As we've both said, it definitely needs to focus more on Doctor Who post-2004. TheDoctorWho(talk)18:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'll be able to help with the lead at the moment, refs for the notes I'll try to find, index and viewership I think you should just link to the classic epsiode list, as otherwise it would be too many refs. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completly forgot. There is zero chance a Gt makes it in January because of series 15 and also how long an FL takes. I think that at the earliest late May/July is the soonest you could reasonably get a GT. Which is better for my strategy of doing the bare minimum to pass Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we wait till then, we would have a Series 16 article too- S15 has been in mainspace since October 2023; a line must be drawn somewhere. There is a discussion of trying a new scoring format, with no elimination on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup- that's what I was going for with basically nominating all this early around January. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, it's per WP:GT? rule 3c, with even some current retention periods listed at the bottom. It seems 3 months is the limit, so we would have until September to promote S15. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I nominated it myself, because I finally got the time to add references to everything. I didn't understand where to add a co-nominator, so you can add yourself. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reason for your mass removal of valid information? There is no reason for the dispute about if story numbering should be in the lead. If it should be included it wouldn't be in the lead, possilby in the series overview. Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)04:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should absolutely be included in the prose; thus, the lead. Every other television article uses overall episode numbers; this, as far as I am aware, is the only unique situation that uses a different episode number storying (story number). Can you show me where in your edit there is an explanation for this, so that readers are aware of the importance of story number rather than overall episode number? The existance of the lead is to summarize the article. Furthermore, the inclusion/exclusion of particular stories, as noted and sourced in the prose, is of importance to the story numbering as well.
You also updated this article to include information only on recent Doctors and modern-era showrunners. The lead of this article is transcluded to List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989), thus meaning that your content on recent material was also transcluded there - why did you not include information on any classic era Doctor, to be transcluded to the classics era article?
If you could also care to explain why you reverted without a reason, when I provided you one?
It is partially transcluded, based on the consensus of past discussions years past. Both articles refer to the same show, hence the transclusion of the lead's introduction. Is the lead entirely transcluded? No, just the relevant introduction, and then each separate article has content relevant to its scope, per your own concern. Did you make almost the entire lead transcluded in your edit, because you moved the location of the <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags in this edit? Yes.
Maybe if you, or any of the other newer editors involved, researched this before you mass rewrote the lead into a chunk of poor grammar, and also reverted without reason, this dispute wouldn't exist. Now that you know of this, you're welcome to do so. -- Alex_21TALK06:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the situation with story number should probably be in the lead (though, it being in the series overview wouldn't be that bad either- as it's just about using a different numbering way). However, you don't have to be this combatative every time, politeness works. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am being polite, by describing why this is an issue. It's called civility. Being reverted with a reason is not combatative; reverting without reason is. I recommend you relook at your values if you find reverting to automatically be combatative.
Also, it is in the series overview, under the "Serials" column. Perhaps change that to "Stories", as the revived era contains no serials. -- Alex_21TALK06:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One season out of fourteen so far. No source that I have come across refers to multi-parters as serials, and "The End of Time" and "Spyfall" were removed from a serial designation for this reason. Serials are a specific form of production. -- Alex_21TALK06:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the serials of Classic Who are called only serials mostly. Would you like to split the list in two, if you want to argue about which of the synonym should be used in the list. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All serials are stories, but not all stories are serials. If you can't agree on that fact, "Serials/Stories" works just as well. -- Alex_21TALK07:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"a story or play appearing in regular instalments on television or radio or in a magazine.": as I said, a synonym. Should we filter out what we want to call a serial and what to call a story? But fine, seasons/serials is already there, why not serials/stories as well? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An unusually wide column for something that could be summarized with one word. Sure, that'll do. However, far better grammar and episode-specific content in the lead this time than the last attempt by the other user! Proud of that. I have also fixed the issue introduced of regularly-updated content by semi-restoring the transclusion tags. Happy to discuss the technicalities of how it works. -- Alex_21TALK10:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that one line needed to be transcluded, but whatever, I do not have much of an opinion on it. (Also, I can see how she messed up the transclusion, there should be a comment it being transcluded). Yes, we can use one word, but you are the one being pedantic. If we are grouping together 'serials' and 'stories', we can group together 'series' and 'season' too? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, you understand that duplicate information would need to be updated every time an episode aired? Interesting.
Yes, and a multi-episode is a story, by definition, though sources may not call it as such. But then again, if we were just talking about the classic series, we wouldn't call it serial/episode, bcs of Mission to the Unknown, or The Five Doctors, right? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another question: when you initially removed the transclusion, and copy-pasted the content across, did you attribute the copied content correctly? -- Alex_21TALK10:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by mentioning that there was a transclusion from the revived era before. You'll notice that sometimes editors mention the attribution implicitly, instead of the usual "see that page's history for attribution"? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if that's how you... fill. Believe me, I was absolutely concerned for the grammar of the introduced lead. Re-reverting without a reason is combative. Kindly keep talk page content to content, thanks. -- Alex_21TALK06:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason in the edit summary comes off as seeming like you own the article. your mass removal of valid information. sounds passive-aggressive, so it's very much about conduct too. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, keep discussion here to content, and user pages to conduct. Want to discuss your issues with me? My user talk page exists for a reason. -- Alex_21TALK10:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just want to discuss your conduct on this page. I would like to discuss your conduct in general too, but that would be like playing chess with a pigeon, so I will just stick with your conduct here. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this discussion is about your conduct here, informed by your conduct in usual. I don't want to discuss your conduct in general, bcs I don't want to poke an issue when I don't believe it necessary yet. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per the header, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) article." Cheers. -- Alex_21TALK22:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Figured I'd drop in with an outsider's POV here since I haven't worked on this list. I feel, generally, that Oli's newer lead does a better job of actually including information relevant to the revived series. As she says, the revived series is different from the classic series, and should have information pertaining to that. Even beyond the removal of episode numbers, there was good content being added that got wrongfully reverted.
On the numbers bit though, I don't see why it's taking up such a large part of the lead. Say I'm a casual reader, who has no clue about these episodes, and has only watched, or is only studying, Modern Who. What's Shada? What's Trial of a Time Lord? What's Horns of Nimon? This info pertains only to classic Doctor Who and is just confusing to unfamiliar audiences. Just say "The numbering scheme in this list follows the official website's episode guide. Other sources may use different numbering schemes." That way we aren't including references to random episodes that the reader base may not have a clue about, while keeping the core information on why this list uses the episode numbers it does, and that the numbers can and will vary depending on the source.
As a compromise, I'd suggest including this substantially reduced paragraph on the episode numbers, so that way it pertains better to Modern Who's scope and is less confusing overall. The rest of Oli's newer additions should be included, since while they don't pertain to episode count, they are generally helpful for reader understanding regarding this list, and how the episodes tend to work and function. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes, and incorporated some of the text of Oli's version. Thank you, your uninvolved (and polite) remark has helped more than unhelpful and generic edit summaries. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestions. I would suggest keeping the story numbering content concerning specific episodes, since, as the prose states, there are different numbering schemes that are affected by specific episodes - those stated. This gives a clear understanding on why and how this numbering system is different. What's Shada? What's Trial of a Time Lord? What's Horns of Nimon? That's what article links are for, and their numbering system completely affects the modern era - this is not two different shows, this is one programme that is simply split into two lists. -- Alex_21TALK22:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the classic serials are better covered in the classic list. A featured list (Which is what Oli and DWFan seem to be going for) should not require a reader to read three different articles to understand the numbering scheme, especially when these articles are not covered at all in the modern list beyond the mention in the lead. For someone who is here only to learn about modern episodes, they don't need to know about numbering disputes involving Shada, or a bunch of times there's been slight differences in the episode numbering. This can be condensed to only what is needed for some trying to understand this article in particular's scope. The Classic Who article is a much more relevant spot to cover this, since readers get context for things like Shada or the series' production history there instead, and hyperlinks out of the article are much more relevant for that article's content.
At the end of the day, this isn't a huge deal, and I wouldn't be pushing on it if it weren't for the fact that this is going to be featured list material at some point. If you feel it's absolutely imperative for it to be included in this article, feel free to speak your rationale here and I'd definitely be willing to hear it out. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed spoken my rationale here. There is no requirement for anyone to be reading three separate articles; the issue of the story numbers is completely understandable through one paragraph, and links to the relevant episodes. Again: this is simply one show that is separated into two lists, with one history of the programme. If this article were to remove anything related to the classic era, and focus solely on the modern era, content such as "Having ceased broadcasting in 1989" and "As of 25 December 2024, 884 episodes of Doctor Who have aired." would have no place here, correct? Is there an issue with including the entirety of the classic seasons in the series overview? What is the difference between content such as that, and content that directly affects the numbering of the modern era episodes? I find myself quite confused on why editors are focusing only on one part of classic era content being included in this article, admist a scattering of it through the entire article, given that it concerns only one show.
A similar example is List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) / List of The Simpsons episodes (season 21–present), both of which are featured lists. Note how the latter article still refers to the programme as a whole, and the relevant material within that article's scope. This is an identical situation. "Early" content is included in the "later" article to explain the details behind it.
@DoctorWhoFan91 I would highly recommend we keep the {{average}} template, to prevent number vandalism. We have no way of confirming if an average is correct is an anonymous editor changes it and nobody realizes it; these values are based entirey off calculations of sourced values. Hope that's an acceptable suggestion. -- Alex_21TALK07:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did think of that, thank you for bringing it up. If an anonymous editor vandalized the version with the average template and it went unnoticed, we would have to check it against the episode lists, which might get difficult (especially if the average remained same, but the numbers were changed). If someone vandalizes this, we can check it against the present version (which we can for avg as well, but then we would have to check every individual number instead of just one or two per season). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the numbers provided in the average template are reliably sourced through the episode tables. The direct uncalculated average values are unsourced, and would have to be checked constantly. If a passing uninvolved editor were to come past this page, how would you verify these values without proof of calculation? Is this not the purpose of the template? -- Alex_21TALK08:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The values in the average would have to be checked constantly too for prevention of vandalism. It's a calculation, they don't need to mentioned to be added. Add a comment that these values have been calculated in previous version before being added directly? If you think it makes more sense before that, you can revert, I don't feel strongly about it either way. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-- Alex_21 TALK 22:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
