Director per CultBox

Per Cultbox's summary of DWM 613, Episode 5 was directed by Makalla McPherson [1]. Can someone with access to DWM confirm this? -- Alex_21 TALK 07:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

613 does not say anything about McPherson.(I'm pretty sure it's just a rumour, bcs only 5,7 and 8 remain and the finale is unlikley to be given to a newcomer) Neither does the previous issues, as far as I remember and have checked, but I will do another check later today.(edit-past issues actually say episodes for both of them, so it's more likely to be a rumour) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks. I'll go ahead and add this source instead of DWM then. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But CultBox might be incorrect- how do they know that she was director for ep5? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the secondary source's job to determine, not ours. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From a technical standpoint, CultBox doesn't attribute the claim of McPherson directing episode 5 to DWM. CultBox says "In his regular column in Doctor Who Magazine, showrunner Russell T Davies took readers on a written tour of the filming sets at Wolf Studios Wales", followed by several quotes from Davies, in bold. It later states "Episode Five, directed by Makalla McPherson and rumoured to be written by Inua Ellams, contains a compelling symphonic piece". This isn't in quotes and doesn't appear to be specifically attributed to DWM, so it's not surprising 613 said nothing about it (I'm not supporting or opposing the use of CultBox here, just making a neutral statement on the content of the source).
I did a brief search and couldn't find any further statements about McPherson's episodes, just that she was directing. However, there did seem to be some discrepancies in the recently published sources compared to those that were published earlier on whether she's directing one or two episodes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary source deemed to be marginally unreliable. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I merely didn't see the point in rehashing that discussion here. While I've already made my thoughts on the source clear, i didnt expect to change anyone's mind. I only wanted to point out that the claim in question, true or not, wasn't attributed to 613. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I just wanted to reiterate that it's likely that CultBox is writing a rumour as fact, and it was deemed unreliable for this exact reason, loose editorial practices. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no community consensus concerning this, only a local consensus. (Makes sense that it wasn't in DWM 613 though, thanks TDW.) -- Alex_21 TALK 20:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly used in Doctor Who articles, so of course only we have a consensus on it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. So the group of editors who use it as a source most frequently have deemed it unreliable. A lot of WikiProjects have sources that only they mostly care about, which they deem as reliable or unreliable. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That remains a local consensus. It still remains in use in over 300 articles. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and a lot is doctor who articles because no one is taking the time to remove them. It does not mean that we need to add more cultbox refs unless absolutely needed, especially for potentially incorrect information. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is your basis for it "potentially incorrect"? Is that an assumption of the source? -- Alex_21 TALK 20:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is my having checked through 30 DWM issues, and then checking cultbox to see where they might have gotten that information from, and having not found anything. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And because it's not in DWM, then it's not true at all? Is the only valid information from DWM? -- Alex_21 TALK 20:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In DWM, or direct interviews from Davies or any of the directors or writers, or rarely from reliable secondary sources doing some investigative searching around. What aren't valid sources of information are websites with loose editorial standards. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Official sources are not the only sources; that indicates that you only view primary sources are valid, which is actually the opposite of Wikipedia's sourcing policies. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources report on primary sources, that's the definition of secondary. You will see that I don't replace reliable secondary sources with the primary sources, only CultBox. But why try to understand any editor whose name is not "Alex 21". DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a further comment that CultBox continued to remain reliable in regards to sourcing this particular content. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 March 2025

Doctor Who series 15 → Doctor Who Season 2 (2025) – This new Season will begin airing within a month. The WP:COMMONNAME is now much closer to being Season 1 and Season 2 rather than Series 14 and 15. It seems that the biggest source still using the old names is the RadioTimes. It’s time to change these titles accordingly as the number reboot appears to be here to stay. Twood36 (talk) 11:47, 17 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]
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 [2] or [3], 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 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]
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]
  • 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]

Episode redirects

  1. The Robot Revolution
  2. Lux (Doctor Who)
  3. The Well (Doctor Who)
  4. Lucky Day (Doctor Who)
  5. The Story & the Engine
  6. The Interstellar Song Contest
  7. Wish World
  8. The Reality War

-- Alex_21 TALK 21:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft locations:
  1. Draft:The Robot Revolution
  2. Draft:Lux (Doctor Who)
  3. Draft:The Well (Doctor Who)
  4. Draft:Lucky Day (Doctor Who)
  5. Draft:The Story & the Engine
  6. Draft:The Interstellar Song Contest
  7. Draft:Wish World
  8. Draft:The Reality War
-- Alex_21 TALK 22:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doctor_Who_series_15
No tags for this post.