Talk:Doctor Who

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2025

Remove all references to Billie Piper playing the Sixteenth Doctor. This is unconfirmed and disputed. 2A00:23C7:3CA8:DA01:94B9:8C35:790B:AC46 (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Already done LizardJr8 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

i'm not completely sure what time this post coming from but i think right now it would be best to just remove that anyone is the current doctor/companion right now in the infobox as we're not 100% sure who the doctor is right now, it could be billie or ncuti, of course the fact that we don't know just shows how silly russell t davies is at writiing now 2.102.42.87 (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Removing all reference to Piper's appearance in "The Reality War" seems like the wrong approach. While the precise in-fiction reason for her appearance is uncertain, we have numerous reliable secondary sources describing Gatwa regenerating into Piper or otherwise noting recent events in the series. This warrants some text in the article. We can do that while still noting some uncertainties, as we do in The Doctor article. Sticking our collective fingers in our ears and pretending nothing has happened, however, is not appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Sticking our collective fingers in our ears and pretending nothing has happened—feel free to remove your fingers from your own ears, because nobody here has been doing that. All attempts to add Piper here have been as the Sixteenth and/or incumbent Doctor, hence the reversions; nobody had gotten around to adding the information here properly. You were welcome to do it yourself, but I've gone ahead and added it based on other articles. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

References

YouTube channel infobox

I've seen it in other TV series articles, so could it be added to this one, too? Spectritus (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Could what be added to this article? What do you mean by YouTube channel infobox? -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21

Doctor Who
Years active	2005–present
Last updated: 5 August 2025

Spectritus (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I very firmly disagree with this. Why would it be necessary? This article is about the Doctor Who television series, not the Doctor Who marketing channel. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It's still the series' channel. For example, Taskmaster has a YouTube infobox in its article. And Torchwood, The Sarah Jane Adventures and Class could also have one. Spectritus (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT - just because it exists in one other article, doesn't make it a valid decision. If this article concerned the Doctor Who YouTube channel, then I'd agree with its inclusion. However, it does not. It provides no relevant information to the series. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

As I said, it's the series' official channel. Cristiano Ronaldo, Zoé Clauzure, etc., have a YouTube infobox even though their articles are about them not the channels. Spectritus (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Same for all YouTubers who have an article and T-Series. Spectritus (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Of course YouTubers have a YouTube infobox, just like how a Television article uses a Television infobox. I'm not going to entertain this discussion any further, I'll leave any further disagreeing with other editors. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21 Alright. Spectritus (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2026

There are now 95 episodes missing. Episodes 1 and 3 of The Daleks' Master Plan have been found. The missing episodes number in the infobox and the missing episodes section should be changed to reflect this.

Source ~2026-15916-32 (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex _talk 03:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2026

If any information changes for the show. Should be allowed to put true statements. 0374bgmyjrhdhajkrjd (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Well we aren't a breaking news site, but if you are referring to this year's Christmas special being cancelled and the show being put out to tender, that information has now been added to the article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

People are putting the show as ended. That is not what tendering the show means. Far from it in the current BBC era. I agree it should be put on a semi protected request. This could become an edit fight otherwise. The latest series should be as well, IMO. Sneakycrown (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

–present or –2025?

Given the announcement that the show is not in active production, and that the Christmas special was not actually being actively worked on (no script or cast), should the multiple time windows in the article that go up to "-Present" be updated to terminate in 2025? It seems odd to say that, for example, the show has been shot on a single camera setup from 2005-present when the show ceased active production last year.

I know the BBC committed to the show's future and the show has been put out to competitive tender, but since what exactly the future of the show looks like is so ambiguous I think this is a change worth considering. Not without some level of consensus though, I assume it would be controversial. Wexford001 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

No. The BBC are actively pursuing plans for further episodes. U-Mos (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware the show has been put out to tender and the BBC says they're committed to the return of the show, but according to the article that's exactly what happened in 1989 (and how the TV Movie came to be), but the timestamp used in this article for the original run lists it as 1963-1989, with a separate listing for 1996, rather than 1963-1996. I feel like it would be consistent with that listing to define a hiatus between the Disney run and a hypothetical future production based on a pitch made as part of this process. Wexford001 (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The tender process is tantamount to an announcement of future episodes. That didn't happen in 1989, when the BBC had no active plans to continue the series. U-Mos (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

It did happen in 1989. The BBC insisted the show would continue, had internal plans which were scrapped, and were in discussions with external partners about ways to continue the series, which exactly what happened here. This is all detailed in the 1990s section of the History of Doctor Who article. I disagree that the tender process is the same as an announcement of future episodes, as that relies on the presumption that the BBC gets a proposal they like and are able to come to a mutually agreeable arrangement to get it made, which we have no reason to believe will happen in a timely fashion. Wexford001 (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

‘Present’ is just the safer alternative. Especially because ‘tendering’ is different than it was in 1989. Now BBC has recent precedent with very popular shows continuing. They actively are shopping it. The show will most likely continue, just with a year or two gap. This situation is vastly different than 1989, where the higher ups were famously not behind the show. Now it’s a cash cow.

Present is the correct move. Sneakycrown (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Another thing (particularly in response to the edit that said "when it returns it'll be 2005–2025, 2027/2028–present") is that even though 2026 will be a year with no episodes, shows even without production company switches or often have a year or two skipped in the streaming era. The Witcher, Stranger Things, Rivals, Loki, and so on. Stranger Things is 2016-2025, it is not 2016-2017, 2019, 2022, 2025. TardisTybort (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

ie it's nothing like the seven years between Survival and Fox, and the nine between Fox and "Rose". Or at least it's too premature to say either way. TardisTybort (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it's more comparable to those gaps than you're giving it credit for, for all the reasons I outlined, but "to early to say for sure" is definitely a perspective I can get behind. We have the benefit of hindsight in evaluating how the attempts to continue the show after 1989 played out, but that obviously doesn't apply to today. Wexford001 (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not list television series in perpetuity; if no new episode has aired within 12 months without a defined future for the series, we list it as concluded until/unless there is future news saying otherwise. Until there is further news, we list 2025 rather than present. If this is disagreed with, this is something that needs to be taken up with WP:TV, as this is the correct and active practice for all television series under the WikiProject. I have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Listing series as "present" for perpetuity for further guidance. -- Alex _talk 21:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, Doctor Who is not a special case that gets to ignore the guidelines that we enforce for all other series. It has been over a year since the last episode aired and the only planned episode has been cancelled. The series currently doesn't have a production company, a showrunner, cast, nothing. Even if this tender process goes well and production starts up again soon, the new producers could decide to reboot the series or in some other way go in a new direction. It would be WP:CRYSTAL to claim that this series will definitely continue and should be listed as ongoing. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Until there are firm plans for production of new episodes, or even confirmation start of production like iwth films, the show is effectively cancelled and should end with -2025. If the BBC does start new production with a new company, then we can revise, but assuming BBC will restart production is CRYSTAL. Masem (t) 23:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. With no official renewal announcement, I too believe this case should list the series through 2025, per the consensus that devised the Template:Infobox television documentation for the "last_aired" parameter. Addressing editors' comments above, reliable sources reported Stranger Things' upcoming seasons when they were ordered/in production, within 12 months of the previous season, which is not the case here. And saying it's "safer" to list Doctor Who as remaining in production without verification violates CRYSTAL. It's in actuality safer to be consistent with how we treat all other programs. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, Alex_21, despite furthering the discussion at WP:TV you've pre-empted a consensus and imposed your preferred version on the article, which is not constructive. I've restored the infobox until the discussion is concluded.

Secondly, I think we need to be very clear the situation we're in here. No, we don't list shows as ongoing in perpetuity, but we do keep them as ongoing when they've been announced as continuing. That's what happened yesterday: the BBC announced that they're continuing the show. Putting the show out to tender should not be misinterpreted as a vague "well, maybe we'll pick the show up again later"; it's a direct commitment to continue the series via an active process to recruit a production company for it. You may well be sceptical after recent events, but I'm afraid Wikipedia isn't the place to exercise that scepticism. It is not WP:CRYSTAL, or an exception to general practice, to reflect a direct announcement of upcoming episodes in the infobox. It would, in fact, be very exceptional to close the date ranges off at this point – I can't think of an equivalent example where that has taken place. If we hear nothing from now – which is unlikely for such a high profile show, even if things go very wrong – there would come a time (after a full year, I would imagine) where we could deem things to have gone stale and close off the infobox ranges, but literally the day further episodes were announced is not that day. U-Mos (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies; I actually implemented the changes before I saw this discussion. Regardless, you have reverted despite a clear consensus forming above, and either way, Doctor Who editors have always seemed to consider their articles outside of the WikiProject Television, for some reason. In your rush to edit-war, you mass restored content you know to be incorrect; RTD has since left the series, and that is reliable sourced.

There is a clear consensus concerning the "last_aired" parameter, and there being a year since the last episode. Why does this particular article get to evade that clear consensus? It has been argued by multiple editors that your version violates CRYSTAL. The latest announcement can be taken many ways, and indeed, Wikipedia isn't the place to exercise your scepticism on what might happen in this tender. I agree that "after a full year", actions must be made. And per the WikiProject Television, that year is after the last episode, not after an arbitrary announcement. No further episodes have been announced; unfortunately, "the day further episodes were announced" is a direct falsity. You cannot provide a reliable source that states that there will absolutely be further episodes. There is no active production. A tender does not indicate a running series. As stated already: "If the BBC does start new production with a new company, then we can revise". But to assume that the source on tendering means the series will absolutely move forwards is more of a CRYSTAL violation than to say it is not. What an unfortunate experience.

This is exactly why we don't create articles for what might be; if the article was definitive that there were to be more episodes, then we would have a live article for those episodes. However, we do not create future articles until production has started, and no source can be provided that there is to be any future production. By Wikipedia's standards on notability, there is none concerning the future of the series, at this present moment. What happens in the future can be revised in the future; we live in the now, not the maybe. -- Alex _talk 07:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

U-Mos, the BBC have not announced that production on the series is continuing, they have announced that there will be a tender process for potential new production companies. Until that process is complete and the BBC commissions new episodes from the new company, there is no guarantee that the series is continuing. This is no different to when a studio or network announces plans to adapt a book or other source material and says they are looking for the right people to make it; until they hire those people and greenlight their take, it isn't actually confirmed to be happening. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

That is a misinterpretation of what a tender process is, particularly for an ongoing series. They are hiring a production company to make further episodes: that is an active and formal commission that is in process, and a reliable source that the BBC are continuing the show. If things go south down the line, then we adjust, but right now the information we have is that the show is continuing. In terms of encyclopedic information, there's no ambiguity in that. U-Mos (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Remember to WP:AGF, please – as you'll have seen in the edit history, I re-implemented the good edits you mention immediately. Per the most recent reliable sources, the BBC are commissioning further episodes through a tender process: how is that a falsity?

My understanding of the current project consensus is date ranges are closed off if there is no news on cancellation/renewal exactly 1 year after the last episode airs (which the documentation for Template:Infobox television supports). To be abundantly clear, I am not in any way disputing that project consensus. In this case, we have clear news on the show's renewal, so we're not in that position.

Having said that, I see on review that the end of the guidance for this parameter says In the event that a program resumes airing after a long hiatus, such as more than 12 months between episodes or cancellation and subsequent renewal, the date template can be replaced with "present" to reflect the current status of the program. That feels less precise as guidance to me – does it imply that a returning show shouldn't be amended back to "present" until new episodes have aired? So perhaps the –present at Big Little Lies (TV series), for instance, is premature? And for Doctor Who, should it imply that we close off the date range purely because we know there's going to be a significant gap between episodes, regardless of the news that it will return? I'm not aware of that being our practice elsewhere, and I feel it's potentially misleading for a show that has not been cancelled (or even reached the 12-months-with-no-news timeout) at any point amidst that gap. But that is a much more productive area for discussion here than the current inclination towards "the BBC said it, I just don't believe them", which is an impulse we shouldn't be basing anything on.

Finally, this is a major series and therefore an article with a lot of eyes on it, so I don't think we should rush to call consensus after just 12 hours. Editors should have the opportunity to participate before any changes are implemented, especially as the television WikiProject has been appealed to for further guidance. I'd certainly appreciate their input on the aspect of the parameter guidance I quoted above. U-Mos (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

You claim that the BBC are commissioning further episodes. This was via a press release, a primary source. Wikipedia determines its content from secondary sourcing. You have no provided any secondary sources that prove either 1) further episodes have been commissioned, or 2) further episodes will be in production. As such, it remains unreliably sourced, if at all, that the series is actually continuing outside of a press release. We do not have any clear news on a renewal. Nothing backs up that episodes are being made. I've relayed this example to articles of future seasons, and Adam has relayed it to the example of a future adaptation of a book or other source material. These are all exactly the same situation, on assuming future content will be made. Just because a formal commission is in process, does not mean a formal commission will happen. To copyedit an above quote: if things go north down the line, then we adjust. It's not just that "I just don't believe them", at all. I truly hope this show will return, I do believe them. But we don't base our content off of beliefs.

The particular parameter quote you've pulled is interesting. It was added in 2019, when we didn't have parameters to separate separate airdates. In the modern times of this template, when we have a substatial break between episodes, we use different parameters, such as |first_aired2=. Examples of this includes Family Guy, The X-Files, Law & Order, and about 500 other articles. So you're quite right when you say "I'm not aware of that being our practice elsewhere", as I believe that line to be outdated. As such, we close off the date range in the knowledge of the end of that production era, then add future airing parameters only when we know they will occur (and in true WP:TV standard, only once the episodes air). As for Big Little Lies, the article definitely sources that the series is in active production. Whether a gap is added to between the dates, I'm not concerned about as I'm focused on this discussion, but active production and tendering are two vastle different concepts.

I'm sure you don't want to rush to call a consensus, despite there being a clear support to list the series as concluded, for now, rather than allow the perpetuity. I'm glad that the Television WikiProject is active in this discussion, given that this article directly falls under the Television WikiProject. Editors do not get to make their own rules for Doctor Who articles. -- Alex _talk 09:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so you're saying that the infobox dates should have strictly been closed off on 1 June this year, in the absence of production beginning on the then-announced Christmas special? If so, that's a reasonable principle of how to approach things – though could create a lot of back and forth for the increasingly common 2 year+ gaps between seasons for a lot of shows. But if that's the project consensus and/or is a precedent set elsewhere, then fine.

I'm not sure why you've brought up multiple airdate parameters here, as that's not under consideration. Obviously the concurrent Disney+ production era is over, and already has its date range concluded accordingly, but with the series actively continuing on the BBC, it's pure speculation to suggest that the show will be off-air for a length significant enough to implement a new 'production era' in the same way the Classic/New series are currently separated. The documentation says to do that if the show was canceled and revived or moved to another network, none of which is happening here.

As you've requested I spoon-feed you a secondary source reporting on this major news we've all seen, I'll link the Deadline article that is already in the article. Google, or even more reliable search engines, are available if you want to find any more. It's also worth looking at the invitation to tender article that's been linked on this page, which I hadn't seen before but on a scan does a good job of outlining the level of certainty the process gives to future episodes happening. U-Mos (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

At the very least, at the time, there was a Christmas special confirmed to be going into production. That's what we knew at the time, for the past seven(?) months. Now, we know that there is nothing intending to go into production at this time, which is revised news on what we knew. Thus, we report what we know now. When we have further revised news on what we learned yesterday, then we report on what's happened then. At the very least: at this time, there is no confirmed production or development of the series itself. The series is not actively continuing. There is no production. An offer to tender is not the same as production, as the proposed adaptation of a novel series is not production. The Deadline source is good, and reports reliably. It does not, however, report that there is production happening on the series. Therefore, to assume that there will be episodes is CRYSTAL. When we find out that the invitation to tender has been accepted, and that further episodes will result, then we can report on that. -- Alex _talk 11:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Where would you say the line is? The BBC announcing a specific one-off episode was enough, but announcing a continuation of the series with details TBC isn't? Both are situations where you could argue that the planned thing might not happen, which has come to pass in the former situation, but that seems a discussion more relevant to a fan forum than an encyclopedia to me. If you're saying "production" of the planned Christmas special included the pre-filming planning stage that they never got out of, why is now not also a planning stage for the next series? U-Mos (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Because, as I said, we don't have a a continuation of the series confirmed. We have an invitation to tender. That is not a confirmed continuation of the series. When we have official details (not TBC) about the tender, then we will have a confirmed continuation of the series. If it had been a year with no news on the Christmas special, I would have also waited the consensus buffer of a year, before debating on changing it. "If you're saying "production" of the planned Christmas special included the pre-filming planning stage"; except if I did consider if part of the production, we would have had an article for it – we did not, because articles only exist once production starts. Either way, lot of what if this; what if that – the simple matter is, we have no official production news. Wait for the tender to happen; that could be months or years. -- Alex _talk 11:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I just read that new Deadline article, and it's very clear on the process other than missing the fact that the BBC have said the tender will go out later this year. But regardless, it's an ongoing series, and the BBC are expressly continuing with it – what more confirmation do we need? Again, we didn't have "confirmed" production of the Christmas special in the terms you set out either, so I'm still unclear why you're considering this a different matter. I don't see any good reason, either logically or project guidance supported, to override the 'year with no news' precedent here, which is what you're advocating for. That year began on 10 June 2026, so we would close off the date ranges on 10 June 2027 if there are no further developments. U-Mos (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Does WP:TV have a standard definition of "confirmed continuation"? If it was generally agreed that it required, say, an official episode order, or simply a press release proclaiming intent, it seems like that would clear up this debate nicely one way or the other, since that seems to be the main thing that's in dispute. Wexford001 (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox television: "If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, 'present' can be changed to the date the last episode aired, using {{End date}}. This does not imply the series has been cancelled, rather that the program 'last aired' on that date. This is to prevent programs from being listed as 'present' in perpetuity. In the event that a program resumes airing after a long hiatus, such as more than 12 months between episodes or cancellation and subsequent renewal, the date template can be replaced with 'present' to reflect the current status of the program." That was constructed with consensus and just makes so much sense. It even (unusually for a template parameter) explains the reasoning. So to address above, it's not 12 months from the last news article, it's 12 months after the last aired episode, meaning the case of Doctor Who certainly applies. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

And also: Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed. U-Mos (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Right. It has not been renewed, and, in my view at least, floating discussions for potential reimaginings does not classify this as an ongoing series. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

In my view, any reliably sourced news that the BBC are continuing with the series – which is what we had yesterday – is sufficient for it to be considered ongoing. Otherwise we open ourselves to messy and arbitrary distinctions of what counts as good enough information, as this discussion is showing, and to the very back-and-forth between opening and closing infobox date ranges with every new piece of information that the guidance is designed to avoid. U-Mos (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It is perfectly accurate, neutral, and actually much less messy to say that the series aired episodes from 2005–2025, rather than 2005–present, which clearly is open to debate while awaiting an official renewal or the series entering pre-production. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been monitoring this discussion since it began, and was initially unsure which way the article should go. After thinking on it overnight, and with the news articles from yesterday, I was honestly beginning lean towards thinking the date range should be left open for at least a year. However, after the supplemental Deadline report from this morning, saying that it could be two-years minimum, realistically up to five, or longer, and essentially saying that most production companies don't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole; I unfortunately have to concur with what seems to be the majority here that it should be closed off for now. We can always add this information to the article, probably even deserving of a sentence in the lead akin to the same way traditional renewal information would be housed, and if, by some miracle, we have a new season announced that enters production in the next 18 months it can be opened back up, otherwise we can decide if, or when, production ever resumes whether to open back up the most-recent range or add another date range. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

We have source after source saying the show is going to come back. This is just going to start an argument about ‘oh it’s the third iteration of the show’ in 6 months when it’s picked up, when it just won’t be.

to be honest to me, this discussion is just irresponsible speculation on a show that has not been cancelled. Wikipedia is normally better than this. Sneakycrown (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

in 6 months when it’s picked up. Can you please provide a source on this? This seems to be an unsourced opinion. -- Alex _talk 23:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source that it was cancelled? This seems to be an unsourced opinion. Sneakycrown (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Nobody said it was cancelled, and cancellation is not a requirement for the "-2025" label according to my understanding of the relevant WP:TV guideline.

Wikipedia is a living document and it seems to me that if it were actually picked up with a new episode order six months from now, it would be largely uncontroversial to change it back to -present based on this conversation. I certainly would support it, but assuming that this will come to pass is WP:CRYSTAL. Wexford001 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm also confused, who's said it's cancelled? No source or editor in this discussion has ever said it's cancelled. That's a wild claim. -- Alex _talk 00:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to add a new source from Radio Times, making very clear that the show has not been cancelled and will be returning. U-Mos (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

-2025. All we know for sure is that the show is not actively in production at present, and not airing episodes at present. To include "present" then is simply not accurate. Just stating the facts plainly leaves speculation out of it.

Down the road, maybe hindsight will enable the article to refer to something more specifically about this time period, calling it a "two year hiatus" or "5-year break" or "the 12-year canceled era", but that's a question only a time machine can answer, so it shouldn't be a factor currently. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 20:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

In 1989, the show was also not cancelled and the BBC affirmed for years that the series would be returning. For now, it is accurate to label the time period as -2025 without speculating on future production. Flabshoe1 (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were around in 1989, the Doctor Who infobox would have read "–present" until 1990. Beyond that, it's a false equivalence to compare a time when the BBC were not actively continuing the series, to a time when they are. Wikipedia is not the place to speculate that a widely reported public announcement isn't real. U-Mos (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Given that this discussion has continued on, a clear consensus is developing as to use –2025 across a wider multitude of editors, with only a singular editor regularly opposing the changes. Based on this, I am going to restore the infobox. -- Alex _talk 22:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

With respect, it isn’t just a single editor, you have just been ignoring the others that have been saying it’s not accurate.

The tender process recently has been proof they are not cancelling a show, and Wikipedia is (supposed) to not be reactionary on news.

saying ‘-2025’ is more speculative than going ‘-present’. We have source after source aaying it’s not cancelled. Sneakycrown (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

the bbc themselves have said when it comes back it will be like when eccleston came back in 2005 so yes new who should be 2005-2025 and when ever the new series comes that will be a new one like for example 2028-present. DannyCutterAnderson (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Where did the BBC say that? Please cite a source. Sneakycrown (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2026/update-doctor-who-future just one source. DannyCutterAnderson (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

That's the main press release. Either way, it does not say episodes are in production, or any details of a successful tender. Deadline has reported that it could be up to five years before the series returns, hence the updates to not list the series in perpetuity. -- Alex _talk 00:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean unamity. The consensus is clear in that the series is not in production, and can satisfactorily be listed as –2025, until further news is available, and then we will update the article from there. What Wikipedia does not do is assume the future of a series. As for saying ‘-2025’ is more speculative than going ‘-present’, unfortunately the consensus of the editors above does not agree. There is no source regarding the series' renewal, and we have passed the one-year buffer date. -- Alex _talk 23:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

There are numerous sources floating out saying the show has a future, though? That many people have pointed to?

This is going to cause a fight in 6 months about if it’s a ‘third iteration’ or not. But I guess we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. Sneakycrown (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

As quoted above: The series currently doesn't have a production company, a showrunner, cast, nothing. Potentially having a future based on the results of a tender, is not the same as definitively having a future based on the result of a successful tender.

I asked above for a source on this arbitrary value. You came back with a whataboutism above. Where is this 6 months coming from? The decision to change it from –present to –2025 is based on a WikiProject Television to not list series as running for perpetuity, with a one year buffer after the last episode. You 1) cannot source your random value, and 2) cannot explain why this particular series should ignore multiple consensuses. -- Alex _talk 23:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It should be given the benefit of the doubt because we have the production company actively saying it is committed to it’s future, and has numerous sources stating yes, it does have a future.

If that future is in 6 months or 2 years is unclear, but we have numerous credible outlets saying that it DOES have a future, including former showrunners, the BBC themselves, and the radio times. Nowhere is reporting a cancellation.

this feels to me like editors being ‘gung ho’ to be right and not being able to provide a single source. You are asking for sources, yet ironically there are more sources in this talk page saying it is not dead than ones saying it is. That is a fact, and not an opinion. Respectfully. Sneakycrown (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand that as a newer editor, you may not be familiar with WP:CONSENSUS or WP:CRYSTAL. Please do read our core policies thoroughly, and I understand that while this consensus may not be what you're looking for or happy with, consensus does not mean unamity, and conforming with firm consensuses is how Wikipedia moves forward civilly. We are not listing the series as cancelled, you seem to be misreading the discussion, either accidentally or deliberately. We are updating date ranges to prevent perpetual listings. We do not base our content off of what might happen, and we do not give content "the benefit of the doubt", and we definitely do not base our content off of random values that editors pull out of the air. We base our content off of what is actively happening in the present. You 1) cannot source your random value, and 2) cannot explain why this particular series should ignore multiple consensuses. -- Alex _talk 23:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

You asked why it should be given the benefit of the doubt, and I answered tou. ‘Newer contributor’, yet my account is older than yours.

I am going to bow out of this convo, but respectfully, you don’t have much of a leg to stand on here and so you went to condescension. Please in the future be weary of that. I was hear to voice my severe disagreement with this decision, and I have done so. And you asked questions, which I answered.

Your response showed me this will not be taken as a serious matter of debate, which is fine, but in the future, please treat people with a modicum of respect, is all I ask. Thank you. Sneakycrown (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The show very likely does have a future. We are not in the future right now. It truly is that simple. If that is too much: point to me where in the article we have stated that the series is dead or cancelled. Please do. If you cannot, I understand the direction of your discussion. Thank you. -- Alex _talk 23:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

My understanding of [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:CRYSTAL]] is that the subject of the article should never be given the benefit of the doubt, regardless of the perspectives of journalistic outlets and the BBC. Wexford001 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I have said everything I need to say to express my view on this matter, but I am concerned that such an involved editor is imposing a "consensus" on the article that does not appear clear-cut or thorough to me, and the justifications now being used to dismiss opposing views immediately above. I'm therefore filing a request for comment below. U-Mos (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the RFC. Good idea. I am concerned that such an involved editor is imposing a "no consensus" on this discussion, when I view only two editors who are opposing and responding to all comments they disagree with, as opposed to eight editors who have clear viewers to use 2025. Let's follow through with the RFC. -- Alex _talk 06:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the infobox at Doctor Who continue to use open-ended date ranges for the modern series (e.g. "2005–present"), or conclude the current date ranges (e.g. "2005–2025") following recent news around the show's future and upcoming invitation to tender process?

• Diff showing proposed change:
• Template:Infobox television documentation ("last_aired" parameter section most relevant)
• Pertinent sources on show's status raised during prior discussion: , , 05:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• 2005–2025 Per the documentation of {{Infobox television}}, Wikipedia does not list television series in perpetuity; if no new episode has aired within 12 months without a defined future for the series, we list it as concluded until/unless there is future news saying otherwise. There is no active production on this series, as an active tender does not indicate a running series. If the BBC does start new production with a new company, then we can revise in the future. But to assume that the source on tendering means the series will absolutely move forwards is a direct and unquestionable WP:CRYSTAL violation – potentially having a future based on the results of a tender, is not the same as definitively having a future based on the result of a successful tender. No sources have been provided that prove either 1) further episodes have been commissioned, or 2) further episodes will be in production, or 3) even that the series has been renewed any further. Once future news and sources are provided, the article can then be updated to 2005–present. -- Alex _talk 06:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, the somewhat arbitrary 12-month cutoff in the documentation seems to have been added in a single bold edit. I think its continued inclusion is a weaker form of consensus than if it had been discussed / affirmed – whether that matters or is a fair assessment is certainly open to interpretation; I simply wanted to note it here as context. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

    Thank you for your reply. It's been a wider consensus across the whole WikiProject for over 12 years now, and it has indeed been discussed a multitude of times since then. As the series has no active development or production at this time, it most certainly applies here. -- Alex _talk 04:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• 2005–present Sources are clear that the BBC are continuing with this ongoing series, with a formal commissioning process for future episodes due to begin by the end of this year. Common recent practice has been to maintain a series as existing "–present" if its ongoing status is verified, closing date ranges after 12 months from the last episode only if there is no cited information that it is returning. No precedent has emerged of a requirement for this information to include firm production details, or a production/broadcast gap of any specific length altering that practice. The most recent source () provides direct citation that the series has not been cancelled and is planned to return. I see no benefit in drawing a distinction between this situation and any other renewed show; all are liable to circumstances arising to halt plans, but it's speculation and unencyclopedic to assume that directly sourced information is in doubt. This does not mean maintaining an ongoing status in perpetuity if no further developments occur: the 12-month period can be extrapolated to 12 months from the last information around the show's continuation, i.e. 10 June 2027. Editors could also potentially agree to close the date range in early 2027 if the formal tender process does not emerge by this point, as the recent sources state that this will occur later in 2026. U-Mos (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Addendum It's also worth considering the difficulty created down the line if we deem that the current continuation news isn't sufficient to consider the series as ongoing: when would we open up the date ranges again? When the tender process is formalised, expected to be later this year? When it concludes and a production company is confirmed? Or even when filming/broadcast begins? And would that precedent open other series articles to confusion over what does/doesn't count as acceptable continuation information in the future? U-Mos (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• 2005–2025 per the infobox documentation and the fact that it is unclear when or if the series will actually continue. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• 2005–present, with the caveat that I understand "end date" does not officially mean cancellation. "this [competitive tendering] process shows that the BBC are actively trying to keep the show going". "but now we do know [what will happen], there's no need for it... you'll be waiting for MORE Doctor Who than a one-off". . I think fundamentally there's a disagreement over what uncertain fate or future means, even during the October 2025-May 2026 period. TardisTybort (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• 2005–2025 We know the BBC wants to continue the show and are looking for a production partner, but until that happens, any presumption of their being future DW episodes falls under WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, and we should not be speculating this. If they do find a production partner and restart production, we can change it back but to say it is still ongoing is against WP policy. Masem (t) 11:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• 2005–present(Summoned by bot). While the infobox television documentation may recommend a particular approach, that documentation reflects template level consensus rather than Wikipedia policy or guideline. The question here is whether that approach is appropriate for Doctor Who. The Deadline article is very clear the BBC is continuing the series so I'd argue it would be WP:NOT#CRYSTAL to assume the series never returns. Nemov (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'd argue it would be WP:NOT#CRYSTAL to assume the series never returns.

  In a vacuum this would certainly be correct, but just to clarify, when considering how to apply the WP:TV guidance, I'll note that the series never returning is not a requirement for using an "end" date parameter instead of listing -present despite the name of the parameter. The Template:Infobox television guidance for the end date parameter specifically states that, in cases where a program's fate is uncertain, adding an end date does not imply the series has been cancelled, rather that the program "last aired" on that date. I hope this reply doesn't come across as argumentative, I'm just seeking to clarify what I believe to be a genuine misunderstanding of the argument in favor of -2025 do not necessarily expect anyone to change their opinion based on this information alone. Wexford001 (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  The template guidance is not policy. Whoever closes this should note that local consensus at a WikiProject or template is not a guideline or policy. These can be useful things to reference, but this article is not beholden to them.

  The reliable sources state quite clearly that the show is continuing. Putting an end date in the infobox is misleading and, frankly, imposes an overly dogmatic application of template conventions and WikiProject preferences. Nemov (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  "Is continuing" means the series is actively in production or pre-production or officially renewed. The reliable sources most clearly state that there's hopeful intention to continue, which is not the same thing. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that it is not policy, all I am saying is that "assuming the show never returns" is a mischaracterization of the rationale in favor of the change, and citing the guideline as evidence. Wexford001 (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  You're arguing a reason NOT#CRYSTAL would say "-2025". While we can presume Olmypics will run in the next few iterations, and no sign it will not continue after that, we discourage editors creating articles so far out from presently known events. (eg like the 2048 olympics). Same case here, we know there likely will be more DW in the future, but whether its in a year or five years, we have no clue and thus should not be rushing to act like there will be more. Masem (t) 16:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• 2005–2025 The BBC is currently seeking a production partner but until that happens its clear that the show is not currently under production and has not been for more than 12-months now, which makes the end date appropriate. Note that according to the template, adding an end date does not imply that the show is cancelled, just that its last aired date was at that point. Once the tender process moves forward, we can always readjust it to present; doing so now is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Flabshoe1 (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• 2005–2025 While it would be inappropriate to refer to the show as "cancelled" in the article, I believe that, given it has been more than a year since the last episode, and that the tender process is so open-ended in terms of possible outcomes, it would be most consistent with the WP:TV guidelines to note the last aired date. It seems to me based on the available information that a clear continuation produced by the BBC and airing around 2029 is probably the single most likely outcome, but assuming anything would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Wexford001 (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• 2005–2025 per my comments above and per consistency with all other TV series articles. Show hasn't aired a new episode in over 12 months, and it hasn't been renewed. 2025 isn't a stated end date, it is the last time that episodes were aired before the show's hazy inactive status. Actual filming for this series concluded over 2 years ago. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• 2005–2025 - As I commented above, "present" is simply not accurate. Some may infer other things about this but our job is just to state the facts plainly and verifiably. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 19:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• 2005–present (invited by the bot) There is nothing to indicate that it ended. The current ambiguous situation is not that. North8000 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Listing 2025 is not saying the series ended, it's neutrally indicating that's when the last episode aired while the series' production status is ambiguous as you put it. Displaying "present" actually expands on that ambiguity. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• 2005–2025 It is not presently being made, we have no indication as to when it will be made again, so it would be inaccurate to say "2005–present." Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• 2005–2025 Echoing other comments, if a series is not renewed for over 12 months, then replacing "present" with a last aired date stops the series from being listed as ongoing indefinitely. In this case, the lack of a co-producer, showrunner, lead actor, etc., makes it clear that the series is not currently in production, and the BBC's intent to continue the series does not guarantee renewal. Cheezknight (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• 2005–2025 Per my comments in the discussion preceding the RFC TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• 2005–present – The template documentation says "present" can be changed after 12 months, not that it must or should be changed. The series is in some form of ongoing development (as opposed to complete silence on the production side, which is the scenario the documentation seems to be intended to address), so reflecting this in the infobox is reasonable. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• 2005–present I believe that there are 2 points being made above, in support of changing it to -2025, which are slight disingenuous arguments (on their face not because anyone is arguing from a place of bad faith).

1. That if we do not change it to -2025 now, it risks the series being listed as "ongoing" indefinitely, in this article.

2. Changing it to -2025 does not imply the show has ended or been cancelled, only that it's been that long since the last episode aired.

But the entire nature of this conversation belies both of those arguments, hence my vote. Firstly, the article gets far too much traffic, to be concerned that it will be left indefinitely set to "ongoing." It has barely been a few days since the announcement that the 2026 Christmas special was cancelled, and we are already having this discussion. It would be a miracle for us to avoid another RFC on this topic before the end of 2027. And the number of articles in the last week, speculating about cancellation, increases the chances that someone finding this page marked "-2025" will see it has evidence that the show has been cancelled. One could argue that this RFC represents a "Controversial Subject" discussion, with as much public speculation is flying around right now - if a reasonable person could draw an inference, it makes the conscious choice to change the date an implication. I do not believe the 12-month window has ever been applied to perennial series like Doctor Who, nor should it applied now. Hence my undoing an edit to the Big Fat Quiz of the Year page 3 years ago, when someone tried to apply that same 12-month window. "Kat (a.k.a. CleverTitania) (talk) (contribs) 12:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The edit you undid three years ago had absolutely nothing to do with the 12-month recommendation on the TV infobox documentation we've been discussing, if you're referring to this random IP's edit without a summary that put in a series end date of the day prior. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• 2005-2025 (Summoned by bot) - as others have pointed out, per Template:Infobox_television's guidance and because the most recent episode aired over a year ago now, we could set this to 2025. I think we should, because it last aired then, but we could add a footnote to the effect that this is not the End date, i.e., when the program stopped airing for good, but the last-aired-date. Easy enough to switch to present if/when a new episode airs. I don't think we're misinforming the audience or confirming a cancellation, because we aren't listing it as cancelled, just not airing. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• -2025 but add back -present if and when the series continues. For now it has been paused but with hopes that it will reopen in the same universe with a new actor or actress as The Doctor. The jump from the 1963 series to the 2005 reboot was long enough to earn the 2005- portion, but taking a year or so off is not unusual (see Curb Your Enthusiasm for maybe the best example) and once it restarts, if within a reasonable amount of time, bring back the 2005-present descriptor . Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Of course. Also, if world leaders decide to rename the year 2028 as "Th3 Numb3r Purpl3" and the show is in active production, then this should then change to "2005-Th3 Numb3r Purpl3". But let's maybe just stick with what we know for now and leave the future for when it happens. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 14:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

2005-2025 - We have RS to show that its production has for the time being been halted. We therefore should leave a definitive end tag for when it last aired until such a time we get confirmation it has moved back into production. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

2005–2025 - This is the end of the series for now. Guz13 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• 2005-present can be changed after 12 months=/=should plus in the announcement they said they weren't doing a christmas special in order to focus on the long term a.k.a. they are in the planning to do a new series when they find a new showrunner. Given Doctor Who's cultural impact and popularity they will announce if they aren't going to continue. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 16:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• 2005-2025 Wikipedia is constantly evolving. As stated in WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, once production actually resumes, the article can be updated with new details. No need to rush and speculate right now. Happypenguins82 (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• 2005-2025 per Alex 21 and all others above. WP:TV guidance is clear on this. The status of the show can further be described in the lead and prose, but as it stands now, no new episodes are currently planned for Doctor Who so in the view of Wikipedia, it has effectively ended until any new development surfaces. At that point, the infobox can be changed back to "-present". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post RFC discussion

Given the above RFC has closed with a consensus to use 2005–2025, I have also updated the title of List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–2025). -- Alex _talk 05:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The pertinent question now is when do we change the ranges back to "–present"? Options would be:

1. When the invitation to tender is published
2. When the successful production company is announced
3. When filming begins
4. When the first new episode is released

Given the discussion above's desire for some level of "official" confirmation of new episodes, and the practice of other articles, I would say option 2. U-Mos (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree with option 2, changing "–present" back when the successful production company is announced, and key producing roles (specifically such as the showrunner) are announced. Following standard procedure, Draft:Doctor Who series 16 would then be moved to the mainspace upon option 3, when filming begins. -- Alex _talk 09:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think it makes sense to decide in advance which actions would qualify to change the article, simply because we can’t foresee every possible permutation of events, and it’s likely that the future of the show unfolds in a way we cannot neatly categorize prospectively. I will say that I think anything before we have a production company is probably premature, but starting with that point I can imagine a number of possible times it where it may make sense to return to -present depending on what the announcement and production updates look like. Wexford001 (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

While it's from the film guidelines, I think WP:NFF would be a useful rule of thumb here, in that we should change it to present if it's announced to be in production. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Gallifrey and the Timeless Child gateway

An edit war is happening over this segment, which beforehand went unchanged for about a year,

Gallifrey was thought to have been the home planet of the Doctor, as it was for the other Time Lords. In 2020, it was revealed that the Doctor came from another world entirely.

changing to:

Gallifrey was thought to have been the home planet of the Doctor, as it was for the other Time Lords. In 2020, it was suggested that the Doctor came from another world entirely.

In reference to "The Timeless Children". I would say revealed is fine. Not only is Doctor Who a heavily retconned show with no singular creator authority, including for Time Lord lore pre-2005, but also, unlike something like the half-human bit, the Doctor being an adoptee found at a gateway has stayed, and stuck as a plot element. The section was later changed to the very awkward compromise,

Gallifrey was thought to have been the home planet of the Doctor, as it was for the other Time Lords. In 2020, an episode depicted the Doctor as originating from another world entirely.

It wasn't an episode. Again, it stayed. It was a plot element not only in the 2020 episode "The Timeless Children", but 2021's "Survivors of the Flux" (spoken by a separate account than the Doctor or the Master) and then by a different production team well after Chibnall had gone in 2023's "Wild Blue Yonder" and "The Church on Ruby Road". TardisTybort (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the first version is more clear and accurate. U-Mos (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I would agree that the first version is the more correct way to describe the situation.

I think it could be written in a way that's more clear, especially for readers unfamiliar with the topic, but it's difficult elaborate in a way that walks the line between not over-explaining details of the doctor's lore that are better left to the characters own article while still accurately describing the ever evolving relationship the doctor has had with their home planet and people over the years. I gave it a go just now but I couldn't come up with a way to explain it that didn't feel like I was bloating the article with unnecessary information.

Given that, I almost wonder if it's worth just scrapping these two sentences entirely - whether the doctor had a normal gallifreyan childhood or if they were abducted from another planet and experimented on before having their memories erased isn't particularly pivotal for a basic introduction to the character as it functions within the format of the show, and is much more of a nitty-gritty difficult to explain lore detail than anything else in that passage. But I could go either way there, if we are going to keep it the "revealed" language is the best of these three. Wexford001 (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)