Talk:Doctor Who series 12/Archive 1

Archive 1

Overall seasons

Explain your removal, DonQuixote. 61.68.205.177 (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake on when that bit was added, but honestly, the lede is for a general audience and should be a simple summary. Anything more complicated can be mentioned in the article proper. DonQuixote (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Spyfall

While "Spyfall" has been announced as a two-part story, do we have adequate confirmation to put "Spyfall - Part One" and "Spyfall - Part Two" in the chart? It would be better to list it as Spyfall like how The End of Time is listed on Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials). I also find it unusual to see Spyfall split between two separate blocks with different directors. It's possible current info on filming blocks is inaccurate. LegoK9 (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Food for thought - The End of Time was filmed as one long episode, split into two, but both parts have the same writer and director. While this series will exclusively do 2-parters, there are different directors for some of them, so I would not consider them one larger work due to that. --Masem (t) 18:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple two-parters for series 12, but they haven't said exclusively. "Chibnall wouldn’t divulge exactly how many episodes (or which ones) we could expect stretched over multiple weeks". [1] LegoK9 (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

And obviously this is speculation, but going by the costumes in the trailer, it could be that part two of Spyfall shifts from the present day to wartime Paris, which might make sense of two directors. I'm a bit dubious about the reliability of current sources for the filming blocks, though - but I don't have the patience to dive in and try to see what stands up and what doesn't. Regardless, if the credits to Spyfall are similar to those for The End of Time that formatting would seem to best reflect the episodes. Amedee123 (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the premiere episode as separate entries. The combined format is only for actual serials, and we don't have confirmation that it is, in fact, a serial like The End of Time (which is explicitly titled as a serial in its article), only as a "two-part episode", and given its confusing nature concerning the directors. What's there can remain for now simply as a placeholder until we know more. Also, on a somewhat trivial note, at Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials), The End of Time was actually listed separately, until I merged it back a week ago. I'm still wondering if that should be the case, or if they should remain separate. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how The End of Time is listed on the physical releases but I just had a look on the iPlayer and they list it as The End of Time - Part One. The credits in the episode itself have The End of Time in all caps (that's standard for episode titles) and then Part One on the next line in lower case. Both suggest to me that Part XXX is part of the name of each episode (different to the style with the original series both on screen and in Radio Times listings). Not sure how much it matters, though, whatever you do is pretty clear. Amedee123 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable source for writers

In case this is heading in the direction of edit warring. I don't how this article is reliable for writers who will definitely have episodes included in series 12. The Vinay Patel tweet that is taken to confirm his involvement says "This happened in the Roath Lock canteen the other day. Horrifying" - that's it. The other tweet mentions two CVs the Victoria Asare-Archer one lists her as the writer of Doctor Who: The Runaway, which is a virtual reality animated film that's just been released, not part of series 12. The one for Prasanna Puwanarajah doesn't list Doctor Who at all. Given the encyclopedic standards we're supposed to have regarding speculation and unconfirmed future events, I don't how any of this passes muster. Plus in the past writers have been working on scripts, according to their CVs, which then didn't make the final series. Surely it's better to wait for solid confirmation than risk misleading information. Amedee123 (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've flagged this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who and am happy to leave this for other editors to decide. Policy-wise here are some links that I feel might apply: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS WP:CRYSTAL. Amedee123 (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It seems really strange to put all this unconfirmed information in the article. I would have though it would be best to wait for official information, but it seems Wikipedia shockingly allows these kinds of really bad sources. Anyway, the BBC website currently says Wayne Yip is directing episode 1 of the 12th series: http://web.archive.org/web/20191207073323/https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000cs1y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.46.87 (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Likely they haven't updated the page from 11x01's episode webpage. All of the content is reliably sourced; not everything needs to be "official". -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Titles

In the case of differing titles between in-episode titles and official episode listings, WP:TV has always deferred to the official episode listings by the series' original broadcast network (i.e. the BBC's website episode guide). -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2020

Add "4.88" in the UK Viewing Figures column for Episode One, from referenced source. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Because I posted that (and created a user page) I got auto-confirmed so I guess I can do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoThisIsPeter (talk • contribs)

@SoThisIsPeter: I reverted your edit. This section is for final ratings, not overnight ratings - these are available the week after the episode has aired. Additions of overnight ratings will be reverted. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Ok, Thanks for clarifying! SoThisIsPeter (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2020

To add the rest of the air dates of the episodes because sources say that episodes air every Sunday from the 5th of January Flappy1234 (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done based on the fact that you need a reliable source that explicitly states those dates. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Air dates

The fact that episode 4, 6 and 8 have air dates shows that episodes 5 and 7 will air in the weeks between. Please make this change asap, using common sense. Crapreviewer (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, to deduce content not supported by the source, from content from the source. Unfortunately, "common sense" is not listed under WP:V, one of Wikipedia's five primary policies. We need a source that explicitly states these dates. Yes, yes, I get IAR, but we can't use IAR against textbook violations of these policies. There's no rush - we just wait for a source. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: The argument for using common sense in WP:COMMON SENSE is [Common sense] doesn't need to be [a policy]; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy. Therefore, according to that, it goes above WP:V. WP:IAR, from my understanding, applies to every policy and guideline if that policy or guideline prevents Wikipedia being improved in a certain case, and I believe in this case a literal interpretation WP:OR and WP:V are preventing the article being improved, but I also believe my edit wasn't going against the spirit of what these policies are trying to prevent (see WP:5P5). --TedEdwards 15:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, IAR seems to be being quoted a lot when it comes to this article now, over multiple discussions... I could just as well quote WP:NOCOMMON. How do we know that none of those episodes will air on a different day, just like "Spyfall, Part 1" did? -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Because a source like this states The sci-fi series returned at 6.55pm on Wednesday 1st January 2020, aka New Year’s Day. Following that the series will return to a weekly Sunday evening release date emphasis on the weekly followed by the Sunday evening which also means no different days. I personally think it's fine to go ahead and add the other air dates as the other two editors said. TheDoctorWho ^{(Happy Christmas!)} 22:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

And then this source states if episodes starring Jodie Whittaker as the Time Lord continue to be broadcast weekly on Sundays, Fugitive of the Judoon should be on on Sunday, January 26. Emphasis on "if" and "should be", so it's not official.

But if the consensus is to add the dates, then by all means, just tag it with {{Better source needed}}, as a better source will be needed that directly sources those dates. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020

Amend the critical reception section so that it reads (changes emphasised):

"Series 12 holds a 81% critic approval rating on online review aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes with an average score of 7.12/10, based on 49 critic reviews; and a 6% audience approval rating based on 316 reviews."

It seems rather misleading to include the results of the 49 critic reviews but not the results of the 316 audience reviews. Harafal33 (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See the note: AUDIENCE RECEPTION AND RATINGS: Do not include them! Wikipedia does not support user-generated content in its articles, and thus audience ratings cannot be included. Please refer to the talk page before proceeding to edit this section, and view the multiple discussions raised on the topic. No consensus has been formed to allow this article to differ from Wikipedia's guidelines and policies by including such content. Additions of audience ratings will be reverted. Also see the four discussions linked in the header banners at Talk:Doctor Who (series 11). -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. It obviously isn't against Wikipedia guidelines to include such information, given that such information is included in The Last Jedi page. Specifically, citation 133 on that page directly cites the Rotten Tomatoes audience score. I see no reason why this particular audience score should be treated any differently.Harafal33 (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Just because The Last Jedi does it, does not mean that it is acceptable or right for every other article. There was clearly discussions about TLJ's audience response, which must have resulted in a consensus to include them. There have also been separated discussions about Series 11 and 12's audience responses, which have resulted in a consensus to not include them. Every article is different, and on face value, it is against Wikipedia's guidelines to include such information, per WP:USERGEN. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Also reliable, secondary sources discussed the audience score from RT, and hence we could cite RT to talk about what secondary sources were saying. There are no appropriate secondary sources (tabloids are usually not reliable) covering the audience reviews for Doctor Who, so we can't mention it. --TedEdwards 12:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Ratings

It seems odd that the ratings here are claiming to use a different source than the prior seasons, and after reviewing the listed source I can't seem to get the numbers whoever did that edit got, either way. The source used for prior seasons, which is included in the header rows of the tables, is the Doctor Who Ratings Guide which matches the info on Doctor Who TV. The numbers on the page are claimed to be from BARB, but after doing the search myself they do not match the ones listed on the page, and actually match the ones found on the prior sources. This seems to me like somebody trying to make the numbers seem bigger than they really are by using a source that requires effort to verify. 66.191.101.50 (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing the edits, it seems the figures used are 28 day. However, these are not standard, which is 7 days according to their own source - BARB, and which are the figures used for prior episodes.

What is the difference between live and consolidated BARB data?

Live data reports viewing that takes place at the time of the original broadcast. Consolidated data incorporates playback of time-shifted content within 7 days of the original broadcast. This timeshift viewing is added to the live data to produce consolidated viewing data made available 8 days after the original transmission date. Consolidated data is the BARB Gold Standard used by the industry to report and trade on.

Since July 2013 BARB has made available time-shifted viewing up to 28 days after the original transmission. It can be added to the live data. This viewing is not included in the BARB Gold Standard Calculations.
— https://www.barb.co.uk/frequently-asked-questions/

Suggestion is to revert the changes both here and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)66.191.101.50 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The edits were reverted. But what edits were made at List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)? -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't edit much and didn't realize the tables in the other page were just pulled from the season pages. 2604:2D80:6205:4300:2D54:5A1D:9112:D87B (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Ratings.

It is absolutely dishonest to list only the critic ratings under this section of the wiki and then conclude that there was generally overwhelmingly positive reviews. This very section notes that this rating is the result of exactly 5 critic reviews. Critic ratings are the least trustworthy.

The reality is that this season has been met with overwhelmingly negative reviews, across more than 1600 audience reviews. The ONLY honest way for wikipedia to represent this information is to include both. Because saying this season has been met with positive reviews is extremely misleading and incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:6FEC:8700:65EC:5FAA:8586:346D (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It's bad science to say that 1600 out of 5 million means anything. Also, unless a reliable source gives it a mention, it's original research to think that it means anything. So no. Additionally, the AI, which is a controlled sampling of the audience (although you can argue its accuracy if you have the sources to back up your claim), gives a score greater than 76, which is positive. Sorry that you're a minority viewpoint, but this is an enclopaedia article where sources are represented with due weight. DonQuixote (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

See the four discussions linked in the header of Talk:Doctor Who (series 11). -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:DW about "Resolution"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Specials in episode tables and corresponding home media releases. The discussion concerns whether to include the "Resolution" special episode in the eleventh or twelfth series episode table. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Noting that this discussion is active again in response to my recent WP:BOLD edit (now also concerning the forthcoming "Revolution of the Daleks"), and a consensus would be very useful. U-Mos (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)