The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to Doctor Who Season 2 (2025)Doctor Who Season 2 (2025); no consensus to move to Doctor Who season 2 (2025)Doctor Who season 2 (2025). The requested title Doctor Who Season 2 (2025) is a nonstarter; the series is simply Doctor Who – I don't believe anyone is seriously claiming the series has a new name for this season which differs from the name used in all other seasons (I'd mark Doctor Who Season 2 (2025)Doctor Who Season 2 (2025) as an {{R from miscapitalisation}} if our capitalisation patrol weren't so f*cked up). However there is significant support for Doctor Who season 2 (2025), but there's a problem with that. This season is the dominant season by page views. If that's a common, if not the most common name for the current 2025 series, then how can the 1964–65 season still be considered the primary topic for Doctor Who season 2? As there is as yet no consensus for Doctor Who season 2 (2025)Doctor Who season 2 (2025) either, I'd suggest that anyone wishing to pursue this further start with a requested move of Doctor Who season 2 to Doctor Who season 2 (1964–1965), making Doctor Who season 2 a disambiguation page. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Well, maybe try again with that? wbm1058 (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who series 15 → Doctor Who Season 2 (2025)Doctor Who Season 2 (2025) – This new Season is now airing. It's been demonstrated through discussion that there is no longer a clear wp:COMMONAME as both Season 2 and Series 15 are being used. There is however a consistently used wp:officialname as shown in the following. BBC Media Centre, Disney Press, and the Doctor Who commercial website, It’s time to change these titles accordingly as the number reboot appears to be here to stay. We should also update List of Doctor Who Episodes (2005-present) to use the new numbering. Twood36 (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 01:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, not seeing the reasoning in this, both series two and season two of Doctor Who were aired a long time ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes the original Season Two was in 1964 hence the need for (2025) in the title to disambiguate. Twood36 (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. But still not understanding why 'Series 15' wouldn't be correct, encyclopedically. It's the same Doctor. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The series numbering was reset with Ncuti Gatwa’s Doctor in the same way that it was reset with Christopher Ecclestone. Hence the last series was titled as Season One and this years’ series is Season Two.

  These names are now becoming more commonly used across the internet as Doctor Who continues.

  In short, this series is not titled Series 15. As there was previously a Season Two in 1964, we need to use the years to tell the difference. Twood36 (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Twood36 No, it's not in the same way. This time it was only for the Disney+ marketing. It's in no way a reboot. Spectritus (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The series numbering has been reset regardless. It’s incorrect that it’s just for Disney+ marketing. The new numbering is also being used by the BBC and for home DVD releases. Twood36 (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Twood36 The BBC also uses it, but the Disney+ deal is the only reason they did it. Spectritus (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason why they did it is irrelevant though. The bottom line is that this series is named as Season Two and it’s being commonly referred to as that with a shrinking number of exceptions. Twood36 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Twood36 Yeah, but if Disney decides to end the partnership, the BBC might revert back to the previous numbering. Spectritus (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Might". So are you violating WP:CRYSTAL and assuming future events? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think they are. Their silence is a confirmation. Drwho20 (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Series 15 is a correct refferal to the series, with many people and publications refering to it as such. Series Two is also a correct way to refer to the series, and is the wp:officialname used in branding (which is often not the same as wp:commonname) Bejakyo (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction, this is Season 2, not Series 2. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake, yea the official name is indeed Season 2 Bejakyo (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because 'many people' and many non-BBC 'publications' says it's Series 15 doesn't make it true. The BBC, sole owner of Doctor Who, Bad Wolf Studios, co-producers of Doctor Who, and Disney, international streaming rights owners, refer to it as Season 2. Drwho20 (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately discussion has informed that providing the evidence that the owner of Doctor Who has named it ‘Season Two’ is not conclusive enough and warrants more deliberation and time. Usually it’s doubtful that such a problem updating a series title would occur, but in this instance it us very likely that a lot of people and publications are calling it ‘Series 15’ because they are disagreeing with the new series numbering. Twood36 (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Twood36 Indeed. I would also like to add that it was already referred to as series 15 before the numbering reset was announced. Spectritus (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But then changed. Like Avengers 6 became “Secret Wars” Twood36 (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Twood36 Wasn't it announced as Secret Wars? I don't think the project was revealed to the public until the title was revealed at SDCC. Spectritus (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok “The Kang Dynasty” became “Doomsday” or the Nintendo NX became the Nintendo switch. The why they were changed dosn’t matter. Twood36 (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Twood36 I see your point, but this isn't exactly the same thing. You can't compare it as it's a unique and unprecedented situation. Spectritus (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  it’s the same in that “Season Two” is the name given to this series. Like “Doomsday” is the name of the Avengers film. However what has happened here is that just going to “Season One” (and two) wasn’t a very good name and a lot of publications have chosen to ignore it. A better example is Daredevil: Born Again which is happily having it’s own Seasons one and two without issue even though it would have been on Season 4 and is also a direct continuation from the original 3 seasons. Twood36 (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Twood36 Indeed. Spectritus (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is no-one mentioning the previous "Series I" and "Series II" from when Steven Moffat took over as showrunner and Matt Smith became the Doctor? Both on-screen in "Doctor Who Confidential" interviews and in footage of the clapperboards, the 2010-2011 season were officially called Series I and Series II by the BBC. 2A00:23C8:8F9F:EE01:4C6:FF14:3B6F:5F45 (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21 @TheDoctorWho Doctor Who season 26 contains the following statement in the season 27 section: "Although the first series of Doctor Who's return in 2005 is the 27th full series of the show, the production team officially restarted the series numbering from scratch. This was mainly due to the 16-year gap between Season 26 and the new series (not counting the 1996 television film)." See? I was right. And I can assure you that I'm not the one who wrote it. Spectritus (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and? "See, I was right", what a poor argument, and a line that isn't even sourced in the article! This is Season 1, as the "production team officially restarted the series numbering from scratch". Your little "ha ha" doesn't change that. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was legitimately trying to avoid this talk page any further, since it seems to blow up every time, but this was an insane argument. That particular unsourced line was added by an IP here in 2013. That same IP added this entry to Doctor Who series 1 the same day: Although this series is officially known as Series 1, some fans choose to refer to it as Season 27 to avoid confusion with the 1963-64 season. The same applies to the subsequent series. The above argument is trying to use a cherry-picked addition, when the adjacent addition literally sounds exactly like them right now - "But it's not season 1, it's too confusing, it's definitely series 15, and that's the case for every other future season!" But, no, they're completely happy with Doctor Who series 1 being named the way it is - why are we not arguing for Doctor Who season 27 and Doctor Who season 41? Because that's ridiculous. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This decision is pointless. There was like last year a suggestion of a redirection of Series 15 to Season 1 (2024) and it was declined. Why try that here to? NP2293 (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless? Both Disney Plus, and DVD Releases are circulating this as "Season 1" and "Season 2". Perhaps in this instance we should not only include the Season Title, but the year next to them. In light of this and the Disney Aquisition, perhaps it's also time to create a third list of episodes from 14th Doctor Onwards. Maxcardun (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxcardun I think that as already pointed out by others that as there doesn't seem to be a consensus we should leave things as they are and let this topic rest for at least a few months. Spectritus (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spectritus That's up to the closer, not any individual editor to say if anyone else can contribute. I'd personally say there's a very clear policy-based consensus, but that's also just my opinion. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be curious as to whether this same argument was made for Series 2 in 2007. "No, it's Season 28!" -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support to Doctor Who season 2 (2025) This is very clearly Season 2 (2025), just as last year's is Season 1 (2024); unfortunately, nobody seems to be able to provide a home media image supporting the name Series 14. Nor would there be any basis behind "it's confusing", as that's exactly what we have disambiguation for. This is season 2, whether we like it or not. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, I don't see much evidence that series 2 is now the common name. And just for an argument based in logic, why would you call a series that is a straight continuation of a show that began in 2005 "series 2"? This is marketing crap and nothing else, logically it's series 15 and anything else is just more confusing and makes things more cluttered. Why make things more confusing for no benefit? MJ9674 (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In 2005, why would you call a series that is a straight continuation of a show that began in 1963 "series 1"? Also, nobody here is calling this "series 2". -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Logically it’s actually Season 41 of Doctor Who. Calling it Series 1 in 2005 was also “marketing crap” then by your argument.

  The showrunners have made it confusing by changing the numbers but the fact still is that this series is titled as “Season Two” and continuing to have an unofficial second title for it makes it more confusing.

  If the show does continue we’ll soon have a Season Three and Season Four that are also being called Series 16 and Series 17. Twood36 (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @MJ9674: "I don't see much evidence that series 2 is now the common name" - might wanna take a look at all the sources I linked below in my support !vote. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I refer to them as Season 1 & 2, and so do many of my friends who aren't even aware of this discussion happening. It's not confusing, and even if it was, Doctor Who Season 1 (2024) and 2 (2025) are numbered that way by the BBC, who make and own Doctor Who. Drwho20 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per wp:officialname and wp:commonname. Bejakyo (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to expand, I oppose because I don't see there being the case that Season One is the commonname, although it does appear it could be/become more common.

If oppose is not the outcome, I would personally think we wait until after series 15 has finished airring in a couple months time. Bejakyo (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would venture out enough to say that this discussion is solely about this article. The previous article isn't included in this discussion. While unlikely, it's entirely possible that we move this article "Season 2" and the other one stays at "Series 14". TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I miswrote, I meant to say Season Two Bejakyo (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the following reliable sources: Deadline Hollywood, Variety, A.V. Club, TheWrap, Entertainment Weekly, ABC News (editorially independent from Disney/ABC press), Parade magazine, SlashFilm/GamesRadar+, Nerdist, Empire magazine, Bleeding Cool, TVZone, and Comic Book Resources, as well as BBC Media Centre, Disney Press, and the Doctor Who commerical website, all of which use "season 2". While some are still holding onto series 15 (TVLine, Den of Geek, Cosmopolitan, Digital Spy, it seems to be an underwhelming minority and seems that many have made the jump since series 14/season 1. (Noting that there are surely several that I missed, I did not check every source that was listed in the series 14/season 1 comparison table.) TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

some of the ones I've been able to find from the list (as well as some other additional ones Idt were there last time?) Screen Rant, Radio Times, Daily Express, yahoo news, Movie Web, Wales Online it doesn't appear to me it's an underwelming minority

Virgin Radio UK still describes them as both. oddly enough Comic Book Resources seems to have swapped from saying series one for the prior series, to 'Season 2 (aka Series 15)' similar to VRUK

The Independent seem to make no mention whatso ever either way thus far [3] or [4], and the Guardian don't seem to have published anything thus far. Bejakyo (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, I actually did come across RT above and meant to mention it in my list, but guess I got sidetracked. For what it's worth WP:DAILYEXPRESS is unreliable and WP:VALNET (ScreenRant, MovieWeb, and CBR (this goes for the CBR in my list too)) have their issues. Not sure whether those should be completely ignored, but I believe that it does speak for something if a number of those still using the former names are the iffy ones. Just based on what we've linked we're at 16 using Season/Series 2, and 10 using Season/Series 15. Removing Daily Express and Valnet puts that ratio down to 15 using Season/Series 2, and 7 using Series/Season 15. I didn't put VRUK in these counts for obvious reasons. While it may not be "underwhelming", less than half is most definitaly a solid minority. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can respect some of those sources are recognised as less reliable in the majority of circimstances, although I do think using them for a rough work out of which term is more popular is a fair use of otherwise generalyl unreliable sources. I had discluded DoctorwhoTV.co.uk, den of geek, and thedoctorwhocompanion.com as I've never encountered them before and they weren't on the prior list, but both seem to extensively use series 15 across dozens of articles

I still find it surprising Independent hasn't referd to it by anything, and that publications like The Guardian or the Telegraph, and BBC News haven't said anything of it whatso ever seen as they're the big UK publications, though that's likely just me being impatient haha. It does increasingly make me wonder if its worth waiting and seeing how it's refered as such outlets will surely have published about it prior to airing or as its airing? Bejakyo (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Den of Geek is definitely reliable, it's right up there with Deadline/Variety/A.V. Club. The other two not so much (self published blogs lacking editorial standards). I personally haven't seen anything from Guardian/Telegraph/BBCN, but I haven't looked that hard, perhaps I'll do a deeper dive later. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically hunted for a Guardian, Telegraph, or Beeb article yesterday but came across nothing so far, though it's entirely possible I might have missed one while trying. I'll be sure to note if I come across any of the three or an Independent article that lists a series name either way Bejakyo (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Guardian has reported on the new season yet. Their coverage of the previous season consistently used "season one", however. Irltoad (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this list, here’s the RadioTimes calling it both Season 2 and ‘Season 15” all in one article.RadioTimes article

No ‘Series 15’ mentioned which is the current name we are debating. I think we can all agree ‘Season 15’ aired in 1977.

Shouldn’t we be discounting any source that is saying ‘Season 15’ as that’s another alternative name? Twood36 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When we discussed this for the previous series we considered "series"/"season" to mean the same thing, regardless of the number. So "Series/Season 14" were grouped together and then "Series/Season 1" were grouped together. I don't think anyone is pushing for a move to "Season 14/15" or "Series 1/2", but even if they were, I think we'd need to solve the numbering issue before we move onto the title issue. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was reporting on the inconstancy of the RadioTimes naming of choice.

However I do now think that the use of Season v Series is important. If you look at all of the sources that have reported the episode titles and trailer in the last week. There’s a split between the unofficial names of Series 15/Season 15. The rest are using the official name of “Season Two” of which the titling is consistent. “Season Two” is the name assigned to this series which is what we are proposing the title is to be changed to. Twood36 (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we use disambiguation and hatnotes. So the (2024) in Doctor Who season 1 (2024) would disambiguate it from the 1963 season, and the hatnote at Doctor Who series 1 disambiguates it from the other Season 1's. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn - Etron81 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you blatantly copied an above response down to the capitalization and punctuation? This raises concerns and leads me to question if you've ever read the linked guidelines or are just piling on an oppose because of your own views. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I'm not going to lie, while my original comment wasn't particularly verbose, I do think it's a bit odd to word for word copy mine Bejakyo (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to copying a vote I misread - I will withdraw from this vote accordingly Etron81 (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Series 15 is still the most common name used from what's been demonstrated. The move to first Season One and now Season Two looks to be little more than an attempt by marketing to make it seem "new" now that Disney are co-producing even though it is a demonstrably continuous period of airing and production without cancellation (which is what set apart the initial move to calling them "series" because it was a revival). Wikipedia has demonstrably in the past avoided following marketing descriptions, for example we only describe a singular Breaking Bad season five and not AMC's marketing of it being made up of a fifth season and then a "final season" or how we only describe a Battlestar Galactica season four and not how Sci-Fi marketed it as a Season 4.0 and then Season 4.5. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rambling Rambler Where do you mean, "from what's been demonstrated"? The multitude of sources from TDW provided above actually prove otherwise. I have yet to see this "demonstration". -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As the official name states this as Season One and Season Two. It’s clear to me that these are the correct names.

on 2024 page which is listed as ‘Doctor who Series 14’ the official image used even states “Season One” on it.

i feel this Decision has taken longer than necessary due to FANS being unable to decide. However this decision should not be about the fans wishes, it should be based upon clarity and the official title to make it easier for EVERYONE to find. 2A0A:EF40:1339:6401:611F:4BF4:73C2:4020 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something being the wp:officialname doesn't mean it should be the article title Bejakyo (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No but as there is no clear wp:commonname it would make sense to use the official name. Twood36 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejakyo Do you intend to cite the same essay to all support votes? -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intent to wp:bludgeon all opposing votes? Bejakyo (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of them? One was a correction to yourself, one was a requested for sources per core policy WP:V. OFFICIALNAME is an essay that "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Do you understand the difference here? -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And likewise you can clearly see I've not even commented to every support vote. A notion of either of us bludgeoning is rather silly. OFFICIALNAME, while an explanatory essay, has nevertheless been pointed to many times across multiple discussions implying a decent level of consesus per WP:CONLEVEL despite not being confirmed policy. Not being an official wikipedia policy does not preclude it from relevence Bejakyo (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance? Sure. Level of relevance? Minimal. If it were a policy, I would be more inclined to agree with it during an RM. However, thanks for linking it throughout; I'm sure anyone with further support !votes will have seen it now. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. If it ain't broke... -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:IFITAINTBROKE is an essay and does not supersede the policy for WP:AT listed above. Further, even if that essay did hold more weight, it specifically says "If there is no evidence of a real problem, and fixing the "problem" would not effectively improve Wikipedia, then don't waste time and energy (yours or anybody else's) trying to fix it." which doesn't apply here. If there wasn't a problem this discussion wouldn't be as controversial as it is. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you'll find, if you look at what I actually wrote, I did not cite the essay. I merely expressed an opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The essay is still relevant to that opinion. But if you disagree, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT applies to your oppose. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT; its needlessly confusing (even with 2025 tacked to the end of it) when its just more natural for it to be titled as a continuation of all previous NuWho series- which it is in all regards except for it being on Disney+ now. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested as to why this only applies to NuWho, and why you don't believe it applies to all 41 seasons of Who. Where is the line drawn, and why? -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, Old Who are titled "seasons" and NuWho are unambiguously titled as "series," for one. The substantial hiatus between Old Who and NuWho also delineates a very large and drastic gap in the show's production history, while there's not much difference between the 13th Doctor's and 15th Doctor's series besides that its on Disney+ now. I'm pretty sure that it was just called Season 1 solely because the prior series were not included in the deal, and starting out a show on D+ as Series 14 would be confusing to new audiences. We are Wikipedia, though, and are not necessarily bound to a numbering scheme requested by Disney.

I do concede that most RS do use the "Season 1" thing by this point; as other editors have pointed out, but for consistency's stake I still support sticking to what a minority of sources say and keep it consistent with the rest of NuWho. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are Wikipedia, indeed, and are bound by what reliable sources call it. The only above reason I'm really seeing is the personal analysis of the gap between seasons, and the reasoning on why it's called what it is based on what we're "pretty sure" the reason is; would I be right in calling that WP:OR? At least we both agree and recognize that Series 15 is only used by a minority of sources, hence there is support that Season 1 and 2 is the WP:COMMONNAME. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I still support keeping the article title as is it for consistency and understandability, but I suppose WP:COMMONNAME might override whatever concerns I have over Season 1 and Season 2 being confusing titles. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HadesTTW Well said. You're absolutely right! Spectritus (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That most reliable sources use Season 1? Is that the right bit? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I think regardless of whether we go with season 2 or stick to series 15, there will be some confusion for some people; it's an inevitable result of the official names. The least confusing name as far as I'm concerned is to follow reliable sources, which do appear to tend towards season 2. Year of release disambiguation, as in the proposal, further reduces potential confusion. Irltoad (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note if this article is eventually moved, then the previous series will require to also be moved to Doctor Who season 1 (2024). -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The numbering was only reset for Disney+ marketing. It is in no way a reboot. It's still a continuation. Spectritus (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal feelings about reboot vs. continuation hold no weight here. Series 1 is a continuation, not a reboot, yet the numbering was also reset. By your logic, that should've been season 27 instead. Some continuations reset numbering (Frasier season 1, a continuation of the 1993 series) while others continue it (Law & Order season 21, a continuation of the 1990 series). This is essentially a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho You have a point, but you don't understand what I meant. They reset the numbering in 2005 to start fresh (even though it was still a continuation) as the show was on hiatus for 16 years. This time, the only reason they reset the numbering was because of the Disney+ partnership. Spectritus (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it up to us now to determine which of those is more important? The numbering has been reset; the reason is irrelevant. Could you kindly provide a reliable source stating the lack of importance this time? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, do you have a source that proves the numbering rese this time was "only because of the Disney+ partnership"??? Even if you can, why would that still not result in a page move, the numbering was reset regardless of the reason. They might have decided to reset the numbering this time to "start fresh". For example, this source says "This, coupled with Davies’ “reset” remarks, strongly suggests that the BBC is keen for a fresh start once Gatwa’s first season finally kicks off" which refutes your claim. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC decides whether this run of Doctor Who is Season 1, not you. And they have declared that the run from 2005 to 2022 is a separate run, as shown on iPlayer with the title Doctor Who (2005-2022) - I shouldn't even think I need to explain this to anyone it's common sense. - Doctor Who (2023 - Present) is a separate run, starting at Season 1, much how like 2005's Series 1 isn't called Season 27. Evidence suggests people are just unwilling to accept the reality that Chibnall's Doctor Who was so undeniably incredibly embarassingly awful that it necessitated starting Doctor Who afresh. That's just my opinion. But factually, Disney+ and BBC iPlayer are THE definitive sources for the titling of the series, and no third-party newspaper will be able to change that, nor be a more credible source. It's time to stop being ridiculous and denying that 'Series 14' is called Season 1, and 'Series 15' IS called Season 2. There's nothing subjective about it. Drwho20 (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drwho20 You're right. However, even with the numbering resets, it's still the same show since 1963. Spectritus (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So by that logic, we should then change the names of

2005's Doctor Who to Season 27

2006 to Season 28

2007 to Season 29

2008 to Season 30,

and so on? Can't you see how it's all really quite ridiculous?

The run of Doctor Who 1963 to 1989 started with Verity Lambert (god bless her) producing, and ended with John Nathan Turner producing. 2005 started with Davies and Gardner, and ended in 2022 with Chris Chibnall. 2023 started again by RTD and Bad Wolf Studios. The concept of the show is the same, but they are not the same show. I'm honestly so surprised that I have to explain this. Drwho20 (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean they're not the same show? Of course they are. They never rebooted it. It has always been a continuation. Spectritus (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The numbering resets were only made for marketing reasons. In 2005 it was also because of the time skip between season 26 and series 1. Spectritus (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons why are irrelevant. That's like arguing the Doctor Who 2005 Series 1 should be called Season 27 because it was only called Series 1 because the show was cancelled. The BBC has listed this as a new reboot of Doctor Who, and therefore it is, and its first season is Season 1. Drwho20 (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drwho20 The term reboot is improper here as it's still a narrative continuation. Spectritus (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to Doctor Who season 2 (2025) (note capitalisation), per sources provided by TheDoctorWho, contingent on Doctor Who series 14 also being moved to Doctor Who season 1 (2024) to be WP:CONSISTENT. Unfortunately this discussion has returned to the WP:OFFICIALNAME in a lot of places, where it had previously been determined clearly that the WP:COMMONNAME is of more relevance. However, there is evidence now that the common name has shifted.

This move will also require Doctor Who season 1 to be moved to Doctor Who season 1 (1963–1964) and Doctor Who season 2 to Doctor Who season 2 (1964–1965) for appropriate disambiguation. I am strongly against disambiguating any further classic season articles in anticipation of future seasons by the same name, but on reflection consider that Doctor Who season 3 (and any future seasons) could be disambiguated when their modern equivalents are announced, prior to their articles being established (which occurs when production begins). I.e. if season 3 is commissioned later this year, Doctor Who season 3 can then become a disambiguation page, with the current season 3 article moved to Doctor Who season 3 (1965–1966), and Doctor Who season 3 (2026) (or forthcoming, if no release year announced) initially serving as a redirect to the episode list section until production begins. U-Mos (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Side note on Radio Times: today they have shifted slightly to "second season (or, in old money, 15th season)" in a Who-focused article, while also retaining a passing mention of "the 15th season of Doctor Who" in a wider focused piece. U-Mos (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but your comment seems as convoluted as a move to the suggested name would be. Could just as well name every season of Doctor Who "Season two" and be done with it. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How so? It's important to consider the impact on other articles, and not lose the progress we made on that front last year (even though there was ultimately no consensus to make the moves). U-Mos (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the 41st season of Doctor Who, and that would be my personal choice of title. 15th season works as a recognition of a long-time hiatus split in the series. But 'Season Two'? That's just a promotional Disney construct which unnecessarily disrupts the sequence and has very little logic behind it. Either 41st or 15th for me. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn I agree. Thanks for your comment. Spectritus (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so but it is frankly irrelevant what numbering you like best. Nowhere in article title guidelines does it say to use the most technically correct name, or the name that you personally like best or find most logical, or to disregard perceived "marketing". If you ask me, I might agree that the season shouldn't be called "season 2" but this is not a forum. Go to Reddit if you want to air personal opinions.

The important thing is that titles are clear, concise, and able to be found to users regardless of their subject-specific knowledge. "Season 41" may be more appealing to long-time fans, but to someone only vaguely familiar with the show? Not at all. This is increasingly the case, too, with "series 15" as reliable sources favour "season 2". Irltoad (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONSENSE also applies, even for those "vaguely familiar with the show". Season 2 has a traditional meaning, and refers to the second season of a television show. When those vaguely familiar with Doctor Who find out it's actually the 41st or 15th season and not the 2nd, their familiarity may then include a quizzical expression. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is common sense to use the most recognisable name which is, I'm afraid, "season 2". Explaining the confusing numbering is a matter for the article body, and is directly referenced in the lead of this article and others (~"fifteenth season since 2005 and forty-first overall"). Irltoad (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Irltoad I have an idea to settle this debate. Why don't we call it "Doctor Who 2025 season" or "2025 Doctor Who season"? That way, everyone would be happy. The different numberings could of course be mentioned in the article body. Spectritus (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable sources that use this titling so that it would fall in line with the Wikipedia's guidelines on naming articles? TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feels like it would complicate, not simplify things. It'd open up more debate (ex. "do all series articles need to be moved to year ranges?" — needless to say that will be unpopular), it would be unclear how to label them in, e.g., List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), and it isn't a very natural title. It would also differ from most (all?) other TV season article titles, adding a layer of confusion. It's an option, sure, but it doesn't feel a better option than following the common & recognisable name. Irltoad (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any compelling reason to reconsider how to rename the articles, if that takes place. That was discussed extensively last year. U-Mos (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it would warrant it either, but as one of the major arguments against restarting the numbering is that it breaks consistency, it felt appropriate to point out that a change to "2025 season of Doctor Who" would be a much larger divergence from consistency. Irltoad (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the above, I don't get how it wouldn't be COMMONSENSE to use the numbering on the DVD Cover. Not using it would be the complete opposite, I fear. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the reply to this support !vote is entirely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's backed up by sources, and I'd support the move of the related 60's articles for Season 1 and 2; that particular part is not convoluted at all. I would heavily oppose the "Doctor Who 2025 season" suggestion; there was a very clear consensus on how to name related articles. COMMONSENSE, if we were to stick with Series 15, would be to include any form of art for this article that uses Series 15 - however, this is not possible, as this is Season 2. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21 Major sources such as Screenrant and Doctor Who's long time press partner RadioTimes still use series/season 15. Spectritus (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spectritus Cherry picking specific sources is all well and good, but it's already been proven above. that the majority of sources use Season 2, because this is Season 2. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also as stated above, while not blatantly unreliable, Screenrant is a poor source when others are available and should likely hold less weight. And U-Mos mentioned that RT has actually gone to using both 15 and 2, making this argument mute. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho Okay. Spectritus (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As all streaming sources and OFFICIAL marketing for this and the previous season list them as “Season One” and “Season Two”, it seems clear to me that this should be how they appear on wikipedia.

Fans OPINIONS aside, for people who see the show marketed and spoken about as “Season One/Two” who may not necessarily be familiar with the past 60+ years of the show, i feel we are making it more difficult and convoluted to find.

Since the previous discussion last year, it seems more sources have opted to use official name.

while fans have opinions on a number reset, these opinions are irrelevant. The official name states them as “Season One” and “Season Two” and for the average person who is unfamiliar with the history of the show, we risk making it harder and more confusing for them to find.

Thank you :) (apologies if i posted this vote wrong or in the wrong place. Im still new to working this whole wikipedia thing out) JoeyQuinnX (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support We should be reflecting what the majority of sources are calling this.

Rafts of Calm (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should be reflecting what the Series is officially called. Drwho20 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I too was resistant to call the 2024 season "season one" when it was airing, but it is plainly true that a majority of reliable third-party sources, not to mention people involved in the creation of the show and those responsible for creating DVD box art are calling this 2025 season "Season 2" (and occasionally "Season Two," which is a difference without a distinction). Wikipedia has to follow the reliable sources on this.James Hyett (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree as much as I hate starting the numbering again so soon. It’s been done now so we’ll just have to accept it even if it’s a bad idea. (Though if I ever become showrunner for doctor who I’ll change them back to series 14 & 15 on day one if that’s any comfort).Yacob01 22:45, 6 April 2025 (AEST) Yacob01 (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yacob01 They'll probably revert back to the previous numbering when the Disney+ partnership ends. It's not going to last forever. Spectritus (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spectritus "Probably" is WP:CYRSTAL and WP:OR violations. "It's not going to last forever" has no source; you cannot base an argument off of "I think". -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alex 21 Good point. What I meant is that if we go forward with the change, we might have to revert it in a few years. But, this is just speculation at this point. Spectritus (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We might, you're quite correct. However, that's a future us problem. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: it's the WP:OFFICIALNAME as its used in primary sources; but also the WP:COMMONNAME as TheDoctorWho's analysis above shows. Vestrian24Bio 10:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Doctor Who season 2 (2025) per COMMONNAME and per previous discussions (that really should have moved these over). A lot of the arguments in the previous discussions were along the lines of restarting the numbering was stupid, vain, etc., arguments that are completely irrelevant to the actual title, basically IDONTLIKEIT as noted above. OFFICIALNAME means Wikipedia doesn't have to use the official name, but it certainly doesn't mean it's forbidden from using the official name. In fact, even in scenarios where say common name is split 50/50, erring on the side of the official name is very common. Wikipedia should not have its own bespoke numbering because it dislikes the creative decision for unhelpful numbers. (On the other hand, noting the year in the title is perfectly fine and the best path available). SnowFire (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the 2 v 15 Publications chart as of my writing. Beyond any lack of consensus from secondary sources (which would exclude making a change on it's own), "Series 15" is being used by the majority of reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia's mandate is to reflect those sources, not make determinations on it's own.-Markeer 16:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Markeer Thank you. Spectritus (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I question this reply. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Markeer: The problem with this is it will be impossible to evaluate every source. If you'll look below I just listed 5 new reliable sources below, that were not previously included, but all of which use "season 2". This pushes the number of each to 19 at "season 2" and 20 at "series 15". When the difference between reliable sources are this close, other factors need to be considered. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's also the fact that not all sources are equal. The purpose of reviewing reliable, independent sources is to figure out the most common name that readers will expect to find an article on a subject under, but not all sources are equally impactful upon that name, so a 1 v 1 chart of publications doesn't hold much weight, in my view.

  In this case, I would say that most people are likely to get the season names from their interaction with the streaming platforms or other media distribution methods, and not from media articles, though that isn't to say that media articles aren't important as sources of the common name at all.

  It would definitely be a different thing if the BBC & Disney+ were using one name, but media sources were overwhelmingly exclusively using another, but that doesn't seem to be the case, given the amount that are following the BBC's lead or using both. Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the sources analysis table which shows that if there where a common name it would be (by a whisker) season 2 series 15. In this case being consistent and and avoiding unnecessary disambiguators seems like more worthwhile goals. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So even by “a whisker” you are agreeing that Season Two is both the Common name and the official name, but still think it should be called something entirely different. Twood36 (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, I made a stupid typo in the above (as the table at the time of writing showed more for series 15 than season 2). I've struck it to make it clear what my point was. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair Enough. I understand your reasoning. I just see that the common name is bouncing around a 50/50 whilst the official name is clear. Twood36 (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do note that given the season premiere, the pageviews for this article have skyrocketed, hence the influx of new !votes that may be partaking based solely on viewing the article, and may not be familiar with past discussions and the discussion of the relevance of particular sources. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As always, please assume good faith regarding any vote that comes in. I am one of those who came to this discussion right after the first episode of the current season aired, but I'm a ~20 year Wikipedia editor and the first thing I did was look at the sources, and added my voice based on those. As of my writing this, there is no consensus in secondary sources about what the "correct" naming convention should be. Based on the standard practices of Wikipedia, "no consensus" means "leave as is." Many AfDs end this way...without deletion. I understand you feel strongly about this issue, but it's clear there are strong arguments for both sides so we should both welcome more voices and not suspect them of, well, bad faith.-20:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC) Markeer 20:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Markeer Well said. Spectritus (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support The BBC website clearly lists the 2023-Present run separately from the 2005-2022 run. And under a new production team at Bad Wolf Studios, the BBC and Bad Wolf has the final say on what the series is classed as. People need to grow up and face it, Doctor Who has been rebooted, albeit with a shorter time between it than the 1963-1989 run and the 2005-2022 run.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001z8c2/episodes/guide Drwho20 (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose given that this is a direct immediate continuation of the preceding series, and it would turn too messy and confusing to split it up in this manner. David A (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is once again a very IDONTLIKEIT standpoint. Views in this discussion should be based on policy and guidelines, not your personal opinion on whether this is a continuation or not. That's not the purpose of this discussion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheDoctorWho What happened to freedom of speech? Spectritus (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an RM discussion based on Wikipedia's policy and guidelines and there are arguments to be avoided. Vestrian24Bio 08:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spectritus WP:FREEDOMOFSPEECH. Feel free to read. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @David A How would it be "messy and confusing"? It seems to be working out in the real world for the actual seasons themselves, why not here? Os this based on WP:MESSY or something similar? -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it is an immediate continuation for the same series as previously, so splitting it seemed messy/disorganised to me, but if other members here think that it would help bring more viewer attention/popularity to the series to turn the current page into a redirect link for the suggested new title, and it is also a sufficient fresh start to qualify, I am willing to revise my viewpoint. David A (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The home release for this series is beginning to appear online. https://amzn.eu/d/7F8L8di The artwork has not been unveiled yet but it’s clearly going to be sold as Season Two and the final cover will likely be the image used on the page’s infobox.

To me, the reason why this page needs moving is that Wikipedia is making it more difficult for Doctor Who fans and potential new fans to find the Series that they are looking for - as the season name/number is entirely different to the BBC’s naming. Keeping it as it as is will only hurt the current show and is not helpful in providing information about it.

Readers will know if they are looking for information on the 2025 or 1964 seasons which is why it is fine to have both with the year appended. Twood36 (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it sufficient to simply create a redirect link in that case? David A (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It could be but you also have the list of Doctor Who episodes page to identify each series on. It might be 2025 now but a reader who is watching the series anew won’t be able to go off of the year alone when it does not match the series listings on BBC and Disney. Twood36 (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I suppose that seems to make sense. I revise my viewpoint to neutral instead then. David A (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the next time we have this discussion (when, not if) we should consider compiling a table of sources from the beginning rather than two months in and then create two separate subheadings, one for the survey and one for related discussion. Considering how controversial this is, I think it would significantly cleanup the process and hopefully avoid the same mess that has happened the last several times. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Believe this should probably now be closed as no consensus reached. Probably worth parking this topic on both this and the Series 14 article for at least six months rather than having it opened yet again as quite clearly between both editors and those sources shown in the table below there is still a lack of uniformity as to titling.

Personally I think the show being renewed further may end up being a deciding factor as to how coverage develops, as if the show itself is put into an extended hiatus it's probably more likely to see Series 14 & 15 regarded as being indistinct from the previous NuWho series', while if it goes to market with a "season 3, season 4 etc" it'll likely become more common parlance. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support because this is both the official and common name by which the subject of the article is referred. TheHandofFear (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It is very confusing for readers to have Wikipedia doing its own custom numbering that doesn’t match any official source. It doesn’t matter if the numbering reset makes sense or not, it has been reset and that’s what the reality, that Wikipedia is meant to document, is. ~ nicolas (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nclm If someone searches for example "Doctor Who season 1 2024" they'll be redirected to series 14, and the new numbering is mentioned in the article. Furthermore, on the list of episodes they'll know series 14 and series 15 are season 1 and season 2 as the Doctor who stars in each series is indicated. Also, as shown below, there are still sources that use the previous numbering. Spectritus (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the point is that I believe it should be reversed, official numbering as a default (it can still say “fifteenth season of the revived series” if needed in some text). The list of episodes was indeed not clear, I added some “Also known as” indications to help readers, especially new to Doctor Who, find their way. ~ nicolas (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was that really necessary? As I said before, the main Doctor of each season/series is indicated. Spectritus (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Put yourself in the position of someone who’s getting into Doctor Who just now. You’ll not know about Doctors numbers, won’t remember names of actors. You just know you’re watching Season 1. How do you find your way to the right episodes on the list? ~ nicolas (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this Request does not go through then we should at least make the Official season names more visible on both the List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) and on the Series 14 and Series 15 pages. This will help users find the series that they are looking for if they have been using an official source. I note that BBC Iplayer does not include the year against each listed Series. Twood36 (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about making the season more visible. While the year in the title is just for disambiguation. Vestrian24Bio 16:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's about as clear as they're going to get to be honest. It's the second sentence in the articles themselves and stated in the "list" article in both the initial table and in the specific sections. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you’ve just done on there is spot on I think. Just as long as other editors don’t keep removing and re-adding it in ways that make the page look messy. Twood36 (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted it to prose rather than a hatnote. I'll still always find it interesting how we'll list it as Season One at List of Doctor Who home video releases, and how we also number other seasons that have been rebooted in their numbering, such as Criminal Minds season 17, based solely on what the home video cover states, but we won't do that here. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, because even if there is a consensus to move to a "season 2" name, I believe putting "(2025)" after it is improper. I propose that, consistent with Dallas (2012 TV series) (also a "continuation" and not a true reboot of the original series), the "Disney Who" era -- if separated from the "NuWho" era -- be referred to as "Doctor Who (2023 TV series)" with appropriate season numbers. Of course, that cannot be done without resolving whether or not "Classic Who" vs. "NuWho" should be treated as separate series, an issue Wikipedia has previously avoided by following the old BBC convention of calling "Classic Who" production cycles "seasons" (normally U.S. English), vs. "series" (normally British English) for "NuWho". Given the magnitude of those issues, this conflict cannot be resolved by merely changing the name of a single "Disney Who" production cycle. Thus, the current convention of treating "Disney Who" as a continuation of "NuWho" (supported by multiple sources) should be retained for now. --RBBrittain (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - series 15 seems to just about be the current common name for the article currently. It's likely that at some point in the future the common name will swing decisively towards one naming convention or the other, which is probably contingent on whether Disney continues to be involved or not. It seems a waste of people's time for there to continue to be requested moves on this until there is a common name in secondary sources. Agree with RBBrittain above that if it is to be moved then Doctor Who (2023 TV series) season x is a more appropriate naming convention but dont think there is a good case for moving it at this stage. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from the the table on the prior article made by @Rhain:, I made a table for where publications are at the moment:

Considered adding to the table major publications that haven't published anything yet. So far, nothing seems to have been published by BBC News, The Guardian, or ITV News. Nor has the US publications ABC News or The New York Times Bejakyo (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did realize that I mistakenly linked ABC News in my comment to CBR, this is what I intinded to link to. I did however, also realize, that while the url is abc.com/news this appears to be an associated url to Disney+ and not the editorially independent abcnews.go.com

Looking at this chart, I do still think there's an argument for not considering unreliable sources and giving less weight to those which have had reliability questioned: WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, WP:IMDb, WP:DAILYMIRROR, and WP:VALNET (ScreenRant, CBR, etc.).

Also BBC News uses season 2, The Guardian has used season 2 in the "quick guide" which is where they link all their critical reviews, NY Times was using season 2 as early as last year ("a promise of more creepiness to come when “Doctor Who” returns for Season 2" in their recap of Empire of Death). TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. It is not the number of sources that matter, but rather the quality of sources. The sources listed under Season 2 are of high quality than those listed under Series 15, such as the examples TDW have already given. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might make another version putting those sources under a dropdown section bellow. While I think there's still worth in them to figure out which is more common as was done last time, I can also understand putting greater emphasis on the remainder at the sametime.

For the sake of clarification for others as it's not imediately clear, This would remove/lessen articles across the three catagories.

• Daily Mail from Season 2
• Daily Express, Daily Mirror and Screen Rant, from Series 15
• Comic Book Resources and IMDB from Both

Bejakyo (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GB News and The Independent are both using Season 2/Two in their URLs in that table. That would possibly shift their positions to both and Season 2 respectively? 07JonesJ (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As wp:headlines arn't considered reliable, I would say URLs are less reliable again.

On that note, I realised I've erroniously included The Daily Telegraph article in the Season 2 section, as it's only mentioned in headline, where as the body makes no mention Bejakyo (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A second version of the chart of publications

The source shown for The Guardian didn't actually mention either, but from it I was able to find an article by them that mentioned Season two. Something worth mentioning that while BBC News is listed under Season 2, that it only mentions number in the footer after the body of the article. I'm not sure if there's something similar to wp:headlines but for footers like this, and as such I've included it for now.

I'll make a third version a week following the release of the series finale Bejakyo (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for compiling this. I would, however, expect this RM to be closed (with whatever consensus is deemed) before the series finale in seven weeks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21 Support currently leads 10 to 7. It's a majority but still too close in my opinion. Spectritus (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to the closer to determine. An RM is not based on the number of support !votes, it's the weight of the arguments that counts. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21 Okay. Thanks for explaining that. Spectritus (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reference, Guardian review for the first episode refers to it with all three numberings, so that appears to be in at least the "both" column now too Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few more if you want to add them:

1. TVInsider (uses "sophomore season")
2. Edinburgh Evening News ("for Doctor Who season 2 (as it is being dubbed)")
3. Space ("as this whirlwind "Doctor Who" Season 2 trailer plainly reveals")
4. Cosmopolitan ("episode titles for Doctor Who season 2")
5. Inverse ("at the end of the jam-packed Season 2 premiere").

TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus. BD2412 T 01:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the RM has been re-listed, can we all agree, at least, that there is clearly no common name for this season? -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Both “Series 15” and “Season One” are used at the same time. Potentially not helped by the fact that many use wikipedia as their source of confirmation for title.

i think at this stage, the best and smartest move would be to use the official name of “Season One” JosephShovlinX (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could absolutely agree with that. As I said when I initially made my !vote and suggested that there was, I didn't evaluate every source; and as I've made clear in later comments, it would be nearly impossible to do such a thing. Based on what has been currently evaluated, however, it's clear that there is no common name. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair evaluation. Even if one side has "one more source than the other", that's still not a majority; I'm sure there are dozens of other sources out there we haven't found/included. Other arguments other than the common name need to be weighted here. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also. I’ve been keeping an eye out for which names are being used as the series continues to air. Some of the publications in our table above are deviating and switching between them. Here’s an example from Wales Online. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/tv/bbc-doctor-who-season-2-31411035.amp Twood36 (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Since there's clearly a consensus that there is no common name, we can no longer rely on that particular guideline, and therefore other factors need to be considered here. I feel like both sides could agree with this too. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per Wikipedia policy outlined in WP:NAMECHANGES:

When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change.

A lack of consensus in these sources simply means there is no consensus on what the change should be and therefore we should stick with the status quo and wait for consensus to appear in reliable sources at a future date. This "go with Official Name" is not outlined in policy, in fact it seemingly goes against policy. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STATUSQUO is an essay, not a policy, but thank you for your opinion. There is simply no common name - there is a consensus on that, and per WP:CONSENSUS (which is a policy), consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity. Further, per the WP:COMMONTERM policy: When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. The part you have bolded is not part of that policy or any policy I'm aware of; can you quote where you have cited it from, please? -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The part I bolded was to aid any closer or further contributor to pick out my view in this wall of text.

The policy on changing an article name states it should be based on consensus in reliable sources independent of the subject, it doesn't give any weight to an "official name" (in fact the essay people keep linking to even itself walks away from this line of argument when it comes to article name changes).

If we have a consensus that there is no common name to change to then that is in effect a consensus that we can't make an article name change within policy.

Now, once again, I suggest we admit there is at this time no consensus, and just wait for a few months. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's not actually part of any policy? That's a shame, that's what most arguments need to be based on, RM's especially. The policy on article titles states that, yes, it should be based on the consensus of sources - and in the lack of that, the consensus of editors. Do I need to repeat the above quote? I can bold it for you: When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. You seem to be confusing the idea of what a "consensus" is, and that one "consensus" must equal another "consensus"; "If we have a consensus that there is no common name to change to then that is in effect a consensus that we can't make an article name change within policy" is completely and factually not supported by any policy you have provided. These are two completely ideas of consensus. That is simply your own opinion - there sure is a lot of that around here! -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21 I have already made you aware that I find your snide tone extremely off-putting and deeply unhelpful in trying to seek a consensus. If you do it once more I will seek admin involvement on behavioural grounds.

Now on policy it says we should consider five criteria, which you didn't outline. I will happily explain why I think all five could be argued just as easily why Series 14/15 are as suitable if not more:

• Recognizability – As demonstrated in the above table Series 15 is just as if not slightly more common than Season 2. So it is recognisable.
• Naturalness – Same as above. It is fairly natural for people to still refer to it as series 15.
• Precision – It is unambiguous and precise as there is no other Doctor Who series with this name.
• Concision – It is a concise title that doesn't require further disambiguation. Moving to "Season Two" would require further, potentially cumbersome disambiguation given there would be two seasons with that title for this show.
• Consistency – Series 15 is consistent with every series of the show in continuous production since the 2005 revival.

So even if we tried to move away from reliable independent sources and base it instead on these criteria both titles would meet policy and therefore one is not inherently more suitable than the other. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, you've listed a number of criteria that apply to naming, and your personal opinions on them. Thank you for that. Which is why editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. That is what this discussion is for - to discuss those criteria and come to a consensus concerning it. Other editors are allowed to discuss there personal opinions of those criteria, just as you have shown you can do - is there a reason they cannot? Best indeed to stick to policy; WP:STATUSQUO remains not policy. It also remains: a consensus that there is not a common name ≠ a consensus to not move in the face of any other policy or guideline. No policy you have provided supports this connection. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also remains: a consensus that there is not a common name ≠ a consensus to not move in the face of any other policy or guideline. No policy you have provided supports this connection

When the policy for article names as I have shared discusses that a name change should be based primarily on reliable independent sources, and we're agreeing there is no consensus in those reliable sources as to a clear common name, then yes it does fall apart. Now you're arguing that well we should follow the fiver criteria but then those criteria can also be argued both ways and then yes it does indeed largely become editor opinion on interpreting those criteria.

You can link to STATUSQUO and relay how it's not a policy and that's fine, it's not going to change my position on the matter which is that given we can't establish a common name in reliable sources it doesn't grant licence to just push "well we'll go official name then". Instead it is preferable to simply close this RM, wait a substantial period of time to see if a consensus in RS is formed, and then reopen the discussion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I have cited the same policy, which talks of editors needing to discuss and come to a consensus. We're arguing points from the same policy here. Editor opinion forms WP:CONSENSUS, which in itself is a policy. There is not a singular policy that applies here, but multiple policies. We could even say that no policies apply here. We can absolutely establish a consensus as to a correct name, which may not be the common name. Again: it is not the case of only a singular policy applying. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue though is that I would argue having it be a comparatively weak, more readily challengeable consensus based on almost entirely editor opinion is worse than this closing as no consensus and instead waiting for consensus to emerge in RS which would establish a stronger one and means lower risk of this breaking out yet again in another few weeks (which I get the feeling would be the case if it's not renewed). Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it's stronger to develop an editor-based consensus, as that's the entire point behind the WP:CONSENSUS policy. Why not create a consensus now and have this be done with, than have to revisit it a sixth time down the future? -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because without a good grounding in COMMONNAME and NAMECHANGES it's far more flimsy than if we waited and then changed it after we had that consensus amongst reliable sources. It'll boil down to "which group of editors turned up that day" subjective, policy-adjacent at best argument without a strong foundation.

Just to go off your last comment, if we based it on Ignore All Rules, that's a pretty low bar in terms of challenging it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COMMONTERM literally says to use editor consensus when needed. That's policy. That's a firm basis. This is slowly becoming the Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It specifically says When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. which isn't even being done here. I think I'm the only one that's after all this actively said why I think a prospective title meets the five critieria.

Instead it's devolved into at best "should it use the official name, yes or no" which is why I say it's policy-adjacent, which is far from a firm basis and more easily challengeable. And therefore there's nothing to easily stop people just reopening the move almost immediately and packing the discussion with people who support the title being Series 15 because they prefer it, which would be easier to avoid if we waited for a consensus in RS which the specific policy for article name changes prioritises as the main consideration. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at an argument in favour of "Doctor Who season 2 (2025)" based on the five WP:CRITERIA, then.

• Recognizability – "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Emphasis mine. Someone familiar with the subject–say a casual viewer–is most likely to encounter the season titles on the BBC iPlayer or Disney+ menu screens, and they would therefore recognize "Season 2" over "Series 15".
• Naturalness – "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." I don't think there's an argument that either 15 or 2 is more "what the subject is actually called"–we've been over this with our list of RS's. Given the confusion around the numbering, however, including the year makes this title extra searchable; rather than wondering whether it should more properly be Season 2 or Series 15, a reader might search "Doctor Who 2025" and they would find this article.
• Precision – "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)" The year disambiguates it from Doctor Who season 2.
• Concision – "The title is not longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.)" It's as long as it needs to be to identify this season (as opposed to, say, "Doctor Who season 2 (2024–2025)"). Sure, it's a few characters longer than "Doctor Who series 15", but concision is not the principal basis on which to distinguish these two options.
• Consistency – "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistency, below.)" There aren't really other "similar articles" to compare to, since this is a unique case of an arbitrary numbering reset by the creators of a show which they (the creators) and we (the editors, viewers, and readers) agree has been continuous since 1963. We cannot look to other Doctor Who season article titles because this is a situation that has not previously occurred, where there is such significant disagreement about the season's number (see this brief discussion on the Series 1 Talk page, and these slightly longer discussions on the Series 5/1/31/Fnarg Talk page). Previous RMs on this topic have tried to compare it to Hawaii Five-0 or Law & Order, but those don't really fit either because of a break in continuity (in the former case) or the fact that they just kept the season numbers going up (in the latter) after the reboot. However, as discussed in this RM on the series 14 Talk page almost exactly a year ago, the pattern "Doctor Who season 2 (2025)" is supported by a relevant topic-specific naming convention on article titles, WP:NCTV.

James Hyett (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@James Hyett Twood found the perfect solution by suggesting "Doctor Who series 15/season 2". Spectritus (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Entirely editor opinion” - do you mean non editors get to take the place in this fun of debating what the most popular common fact is? Twood36 (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They can’t of course so I retract the rhetorical question after confirming through research. (I’m not here to deliberately be a pain). What we do have instead of editor opinion is cited evidence from the current creators of Doctor Who, whilst no one has anything concrete from anyone else apart from where it was 2 years ago. Twood36 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What we do have instead of editor opinion is cited evidence from the current creators of Doctor Who, whilst no one has anything concrete from anyone else apart from where it was 2 years ago.

No, what we have is a policy that in layman's terms says "article name changes should be based on what is commonly reported in reliable, independent sources" and a big-ass table right above that shows there is no established common name amongst said sources. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surely just sticking with the “last consensus” just leaves Wikipedia out of date.there’s no consensus on a common name but there is on the official name. The most reliable sources are consistent in using the official name. Twood36 (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surely just sticking with the “last consensus” just leaves Wikipedia out of date.there’s no consensus on a common name but there is on the official name. The most reliable sources are consistent in using the official name.

I'm sorry but this argument that "the most reliable sources" is something made up by yourself given you just seem to be deeming the sources that agree with you to be the most reliable.

And Wikipedia being "out of date" isn't really a concern. Wikipedia is always inevitably out of date given we require reference to reliable, independent sources to establish verifiability. Plus many sources as shown above still use Series 14/15 as their reference so it's arguably not even "out of date" in any sense. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How could there possibly be a source that is more reliable than the BBC who own Doctor Who and the production companies that produce the current show? Twood36 (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because they’re not independent of the production they’re therefore basically redundant under our policies, which look to avoid using self-published or non-independent sources as much ad possible. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I question the policies. They appear to be leading to this long, never-ending and repeatedly re-opened discussion happening over what is only a TV programme. The creators and owners of the show have been clear what they have named the series and the evidence has been cited that shows this. Twood36 (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you're welcome to challenge them, but they are core to the project. While yes when it comes to media it can seem pernickety the general principle is exceedingly important as it stops us having articles that are essentially "Joe Bloggs, an article. Joe Bloggs is an exceedingly impressive fellow, citation the Joe Bloggs Website". Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but in your Joe Bloggs example, the subject matter and example citation is obviously silly and would be removed. Meanwhile you can trust the BBC’s official press to report on Doctor Who, which has been one of their staple programmes for over 60 years. Twood36 (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't work like that. It's either one rule for everything or no rule at all. Use of self-published sources can only be used in limited circumstances, and the fact we have so many reliable sources using contradictory terminology weakens the case here.

The fact we've had five RMs on this exact issue is an unusual fringe instance but better it's something as meaningless as this than removing the rule and leaving the site open to libel. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but having just looked at some of the citations used across Doctor Who pages on here and the BBC has been used several times - which is contradictory. You can’t possibly have a popular opinion poll to determine what every different fact should be. Twood36 (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend reading WP:PRIMARY. It actually details when and where you can use primary sources, which is actually across a wide array of reasons, many of which actually conform to this discussion, and it actually applies to many different rules for many different scenarios; while one rule for everything would make it easier, that's actually not the case. Nowhere in these policies is it said that primary sources cannot be used. Hopefully this helps everyone involved. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about it being a primary or secondary source, but rather self-published and therefore not independent which is under stricter limits. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but your Joe Bloggs example is more likely to come into play here through the external sources. “He’s an impressive fellow” says a few sites whilst “he sucks” prevails on a fair few. How do we decide which is the common fact? This is the exact problem with this series naming as a lot of the fans and journalists are using ‘series 15’ because they disagree with the series remembering. Twood36 (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case if it was an article it would be a case of prose stating with sources that there is disagreement about Joe Blogg's character.

The problem here is... well we can only have one article name and the main criteria is meant to be reporting in reliable, independent sources. And the sources we have show a clear lack of consensus. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So a possible resolution could be to highlight both names of the series that are being used. “Season Two/Series 15”. But that is messy so I would open discussion up to how best to support both names. Ending on a lack of consensus however is essentially saying “Wikipedia doesn’t know <shrug>” Twood36 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't about to start having dual titles, so yes an ending of "we couldn't get agreement so will stick with at least a somewhat accurate title for now" is a valid outcome. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Twood36 That's a great idea. We could move it to Doctor Who series 15/season 2. That way, both sides would be satisfied, and people new to the show would find it easily. Spectritus (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21 @TheDoctorWho Twood36 has found the perfect solution to this! Spectritus (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely not. That does not conform with WP:NCTV at all. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21 Indeed. But, according to this policy there shouldn't be a move. "A consistent naming scheme should be used for all season articles of a TV show: if one season is named something special, this should be noted through redirects and in the article's WP:LEAD, but the article should be named in the same fashion as the other season pages." Spectritus (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't "one season named something special", this is a consistent restart in season numbering. If that was the case, that would be another argument for series 1 needing to be season 27. That specific phrasing was intended to address things Flux actually existing at series 13 or Trial of a Timelord existing at season 23. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho Okay. Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I've heard repeatedly, and yet you ignore all past examples. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, the archives of the Doctor Who series 5 Talk page can provide us with insight into how Wikipedia has dealt with unclear season titles in the past. While there was debate swirling around about whether the 2010 season should be series 5 (per previous numbering) or series 1 (per how the season was known during production), Wikipedia simply called it Doctor Who (2010 series). If we are looking for non-15 non-2 solution, something like Doctor Who (2025 series) would be consistent with past practice and less cumbersome than this suggestion. James Hyett (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps naming policy has evolved in the last fifteen years (if I didn't remember proposing the move to series 5 back then, I'm not going to remember that), but as far as the current criteria goes that article should never have been other than series 5 (it was moved in January 2010, with no apparent discussion). We should use the current, consistent title unless consensus emerges to change it. U-Mos (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going with Doctor Who (2025 series) (and likewise for Series 14) would be something I'd consider workable. Given the show is currently "on the bubble" renewal-wise it leaves it more open to future discussion to see where RS's fall down the line. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d agree with that proposal. As long as there’s visibility and redirects on the pages for both “Season 2” and “Series 15” Twood36 (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rambling Rambler Why not Doctor Who series 15/season 2? Spectritus (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's potentially confusing, introduces ambiguity given there are multiple season 2s, is frankly horrible to read and feels unnatural, but beyond all that requires having a forward slash in the address which is something typically desired to be avoided given technical issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to disagree with this suggestion as it's not at all rooted in WP:NCTV. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much inclined to agree. The decision really should be between "Doctor Who series 15" and "Doctor Who season 2 (2025)". I mentioned the "Doctor Who (2025 series)" as an alternative to the suggested "Doctor Who series 15/season 2", having discovered the previous title of Doctor Who series 5 while putting together my WP:CRITERIA-based comment above. James Hyett (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what a primary source. Joe Bloggs and the BBC are both primary sources. There's then a difference between self-published content; that is what the Joe Bloggs content would come under. Primary sourced content, such as that from the BBC, conforms with everything under WP:PRIMARY and is therefore acceptable. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which arm of the BBC. BBC News would be regarded as primary but independent, while BBC studios press releases/statements (which is what Twood36 seems to be implying they want to use) would likely be considered self-published and certainly not independent as they're the production company of the show and therefore fall afoul. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That comes under WP:SPS. BBC Studios conforms under SPS. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it was in prose there are several areas it would be fine, but using self-published sources as the sole justification for the article title is something I would be sceptical over justifying. It wouldn't be considered under WP:SPS but rather WP:ABOUTSELF and I can then see it being argued the toss over. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPS is under the Verifiability policy, which concerns all areas of content - WP:AT is a content policy. SPS applies to article titles just as much as it does to article content; titles are content. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. ABOUTSELF is part of SPS, but it is a more stringent form used when you want to use a self-published source to talk about itself, which is what the instance would be here. If we were to justify Season Two on the grounds of say BBC Studio's own material then it is their own material referring to itself as the production company.

That's why I think it has the potential to get challenged in this situation given we have demonstrated RS doesn't agree conclusively with their own titling. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s BBC News calling it Season Two - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e405g2e39o Twood36 (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the table. Just gets us right back to "amongst reliable sources, there is no consensus" which is where we were days ago. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While that IMDB article my use both, the main pages for shows uses Doctor Who (2023) and includes the 2023 special and Season 1 and 2.

Same for TheTVDB (though they also include the specials with the 2005 show) 64.8.113.181 (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's only 9 months since this was last debated. Given the confusion this would create, given that we already have a Season 2, it's unnecessary. The only thing that's changed since the last debate, is that it's increasingly unlikely there'll every be a "Season 3", given Disney's reluctance to do a second order. So does that mean we'll have "Season 1 2028" if there's a 16th series? Also, why do this now, when there's the most eyes on this page. Can someone please close this now, as there's clearly no consensus, and there's a lot of eyes on this article. Nfitz (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't really a reply to Nfitz, but I couldn't work out how to put it in as a new comment. Anyway I agree with

  • Oppose the move

  because as someone who just comes in occasionally to read what other people have been saying about Dr Who, calling the two most recent seasons S14 and S15 just makes sense - they clearly follow on from S13 (with intervening specials), I felt a sense of relief when I came here (after being in iPlayer) and found a sensible name in use. Calling them S1 and S2 may be new BBC official-speak but it's downright confusing.

  Sorry I can't support this by delving into the obviously arcane subject of Wikipedia naming policies, I just want something natural. I suppose "S15 (official S2 in 2023-)" could work and relates to iPlayer. Calling it "S2 (2025)", and of course "S1 (2024)" for the previous season would completely break the sequence from S13. Alan-24 (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Another IDONTLIKEIT... -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alan-24 I agree with you. Spectritus (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I support moving it to Doctor Who season 2 (2025).

If people don't start changing their minds then everyone will be having the same discussion for season 3 in the talk page after being incorrectly written as series 16. It's officially season 2, it is season 2, it's sold as season 2 in dvd, a reliable source on The Mirror says it's getting two additional seasons no matter the decision that's being made by Disney. Coming to conclusion there is no concenus and stepping back and waiting for several months will lead to this exact same conversation when someone unfortunately labels it as season 16 instead of season 3. BBC iPlayer has it under season 2 just as much as Disney does.

When you start to admit there are those of you who refuse to refer to it by season 2 instead of the official name then things can carry on. The only reason why people are referring to it as season 15 is because of here, and you refuse to acknowledge it, I will never get off that stance. Season 2 can't be common name if you're plugging your ears and refusing to listen to those who are acknowledging it as season 2. Using rules against the blatant error purposely. Every single argument against the move is WP:IDONTLIKEIT

I only realized the argument went here which makes my point even bluntly. It's season 2, and if you don't start agreeing, we'll have it in the season 3 talk page going over this argument. 69.161.57.134 (talk)

Support to Doctor Who season 2 (2025), t'wud seem the Beeb player uses this terminology, and after a quick search it's down to PR/Bad Wolf. Are there any home video examples of 'series 14?'Halbared (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Halbared The Mirror isn't reliable. Spectritus (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read it on Yahoo news. Halbared (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Halbared I suggest that we wait for Disney's decision as if they end the partnership, the BBC could revert back to the previous numbering. Spectritus (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spectritus: Your suggestion is a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Vestrian24Bio 05:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be down to the BBC. They are the ones who make it after all, and whatever title they use (whether Series 15 or Season 2), should be used. However, instead of "Season 2 (2025)", I think it should be "Season 2 (Revived era)", so that every new season doesn't have a new year added every season. ^Tattooed_Leprechaun｜^🗣️💬 23:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the turmoil about the continuation of this "series", and when and if there will be another, and after a semi-quick read of the additional comments, it seems understandable to just leave the title as is for now and see what develops over time. Commonsense might play a role here (as the 16th doctor!). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm hesitant to add to a discussion that is already so long and messy, but now that the season has come to an end, I think it's pretty clear that most reliable sources have adopted the official naming scheme, continuing the trend that started last year. Here's my quick analysis of the last two months.

2 vs. 15

Season 2	Series 15	Both
Associated Press Attitude The A.V. Club Axios Bleeding Cool CBR CinemaBlend Collider Cosmopolitan * Deadline Digital Trends Empire Entertainment Weekly /Film * Film Stories GLAAD The Guardian IGN The Independent Inverse The Mary Sue Mashable Metacritic Nerdist The New York Times - Polygon * Rotten Tomatoes The Scotsman TechRadar * The Telegraph Total Film Variety + Wired and the BBC and Disney	Business Insider * Den of Geek Digital Spy Radio Times Screen Rant TheWrap TVLine Vulture	Evening Standard (2, 15) Gizmodo (2, 15, 41) The Hollywood Reporter (2, 15) Men's Journal (15, 41) MovieWeb (2, 15) Parade (2, 15) PinkNews (2, 15) Telly Visions Us Weekly

To be clear, I'm not bothered by article titles not matching home media covers, or by rumours that the show will not be renewed (if season 2 is the last season, then it is what it is; if the BBC decides to market the next one as Series 16, then I'm sure we'll see another shift in the sources back to Series 14 and 15 and we can do this all over again). The only thing I'm interested in is the article titles policy, and now that the common name seems to have finally shifted, I would offer my support to changing the titles of the two (or four) relevant articles. Parentheses may not be as clean or natural as we'd like, but that's what happens when a show has been running for 61+ years, I suppose. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:COMMONNAME, these changes will make the titles more confusing, and the last two series are still a continuation of and more similar to the 'series' than the 'seasons' anyways. Happily888 (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]