Talk:List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish/Archive 1

Archive 1

Saving space (and time!)

It seems that there's a lot of unnecessary space being taken up in the spin-off sections; having each season listed individually doesn't really help clarify any details, and actually makes them all much less defined than they could be - for example, scrolling down the page it becomes difficult to differentiate between what's the final season of one spin-off and the first season of the next.

If instead seasons were pushed together to more closely resemble the Monthly and Companion Chronicles sections (so, for example, all of the Gallifrey series in one table instead of in separate tables under separate headings) it would cut out blank space on the page and make it easier to differentiate between the different series.

Series 1 of the Lost Stories, codes

Series 1 of The lost Stories with Colin Baker and Nicola Bryant have been given series sorting codes. 'The Nightmare Fair' has 6YAA, 'Mission to Magnus' has 6YAB, 'Leviathan' had 6YAC ect. Should the series codes be added to the table as with the main series?

Published or released?

Re: the headers in the table. Although "Published" is equally valid in a legal sense, shouldn't it be "released" instead? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Published sounds more like it's done but it MIGHT NOT be available. Released means the date that it's available to the public! --The Core-Man 12:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who at the BBC: The Plays

Should this be included in this list? If not, where should it be listed? In either case it and it's sub article Dalek I Love You (radio) need a bit of cleaning, but I don't know what format to use if it's not a Big Finish production. Hewinsj 05:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a seperate section for non-Big Finish releases. Pescatons, Nightmare Fair, and Slipback should be included on this new article. The Core-Man 12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just found Doctor Who audio releases, which seems like it should work. Hewinsj 13:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, just added that to my watchlist! The Core-Man 18:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use images

I've just removed over 90 Fair use images that were inserted into this page. Per Wikipedia policy Fair Use Criteria #3 and #8, Fair Use images must be kept to a minimum. 90+ images are entirely excessive, and should not be readded to the page. Sorry. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Davros Mission

Should the Davros Boxset exclusive audio be included in the list of special releases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.192.48 (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"The first five audio plays were released in both audio tape and CD format, and subsequent releases have been on CD only."

I have 9-14 here on audiotape, they're new quality.

That would be the first fifteen I think.--Yrcanos (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

I think it may be necessary to expand this page considerably.

Firstly: Non-Doctor Who Big Finish releases have somewhat poor coverage on wikipedia and it's rather frustrating. I've tried to edit existing pages and add this sort of format to them, but the individual... fan-bases I suppose, edit it to death and bring in their own ideas. The result is a rag-tag chain of pages only vaguely linked.

I think, in order to solve this problem, the page should be renamed "List of releases from Big Finish" and that everything that Big Finish have released (Stargate, Highlander, Sapphire & Steel, etc.) be included.

Secondly: The "Non-Doctor Dramas" page does not include the Bernice Summerfield, which is really a Doctor Who spin-off which should be included even if the page doesn't undergo the massive expansion mentioned above.

Thirdly: Books should also be included. The Short Trips, the script books, the non-fiction stuff, just for the sake of completeness. Because they get very poor coverage elsewhere.

Anyone agree?--Yrcanos (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Canoncity

"The canonicity of the audio dramas, as with other Doctor Who spin-off media, is unclear, though the adaptation of one of them may be seen as ruling it (possibly the entire range) out." I do not see why that is the case because while the TV episode Dalek is based on the audio Jubilee, Dalek is not exactly the same story from Jubilee.

So the Doctor could have experienced both adventures in the same universe.

Having said that the audios that should truly be consider as canon are the ones that Paul McGann did when he was still technically the current Doctor, at least he got more material to work with than just one TV movie.

Therefore it does not bother me that much about the canoncity about the other audios.--The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, the policy on Doctor Who's canoncity is quite clear these days: There isn't one. Show producers Davies and Moffat have both stated outright that a show about time and space hopping heroes shouldn't have one, and this neatly avoids any issue of the show becoming inaccessible to anyone in the UK, who indirectly pay for the show. I should perhaps write a wiki article on this. - EdFortune (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please restore the page

Can someone please, please, please restore the page to how it was on Friday. Someone came along on Saturday and made dozens of changes without asking, and now the page is riddled with mistakes. The sorting feature is pretty much useless now, the number of releases is wrong, links to future stories are gone, links have been added that go to the wrong places, sizes have been changed to fit whatever his computer looks like, categories have been removed and coalesced making their contents wrong. It's like a hurricane disaster. There are too many to hit an undo button. People have been pecking away at some of the mistakes, but it'll take ages to fix. Can someone in authority please just put it back to how it was on Friday, hopefully soon before any real updates start coming. Thank you. Cumbersnatch 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Release Dates

Where do the release dates in this article come from? That is, the exact dates - 19 July 1999, etc. - not just the months of release? Hotmissile (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC) These are listed on the Big Finish pages for each release. In later releases, this has simply become the last day of the month (even though they are often available before that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeschampignon (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Special Releases/Bonus Releases

On the Big Finish website, it lists the Subscriber Bonus CDs as being seperate from the upcoming "Special Releases" (Love and War, Dark Eyes, Voyage to Venus, etc). As such, should this list not also seperate them? Bartender2347 (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Shouldn't the words Doctor Who in the page title be in italics? Goodsmudge (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Series Sorting

The 'Series Sorted' column is very useful, using as it does the story production codes to provide a clear location within the narrative of the classic series. Could we make it more useful by assigning a code to those without (or altering others slightly to accommodate), as has been done with the first series of The Lost Stories? That makes it very useful when it comes to following the journeys of the Doctors and his companions, and understanding the narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.180.110 (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

While this might seem logical, it's a slippery path towards original research, which is against Wiki policies. The production codes for Series 1 were provided by Big Finish on their website; the codes for other series were not (except for the 5th Doctor lost Stories, which have TBC, 6E/AB, and 6E/AC). Listing the established codes can be cited to the BF website; making new codes cannot be cited. Remember: It was original research that got the Doctor Who Story Chronology page deleted; we don't want that happening with this page! --Bartender2347 (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Production Codes after 2013

It seems that, starting with Night of the Stormcrow, and continuing with the main range from #169 (The Wrong Doctors), Big Finish has ceased providing production codes (or even set chronological placement) for any of their audios. As such, any codes for said releases are original research, and cannot be cited to any source. The production codes on these releases either need citations or need to be removed. It should also be noted that proper chronological placement is NOT synonymous with production codes. Just because we know where it's supposed to fit in does NOT mean that we can arbitrarily assign a code. Bartender2347 (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Lacking notability

Most of these 160+ articles about radio plays would not pass the Notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. They would be more appropriate in a single article (or one article per season or other grouping), but not individual articles per show. Not without sourcing for each and every show to prove notability according to Wikipedia's WP:GNG guideline. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Classic Doctors, New Monsters"

The list seems to be lacking of one release, which was announced at about the same time as the Torchwood set and the UNIT: The New Series release: Classic Doctors, New Monsters. 101090ABC (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The Worlds of Big Finish

How should we incorporate the aforementioned Big Finish crossover special? All suggestions welcome. 58.7.153.68 (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Splitting spin offs from actual Doctor Who

I had been working at moving lists to more appropriate article about the specific series - with a view to provide more info about the shows and including summaries etc. I was transcluding back to this list - however I hit a hard limit of the total size of transcluded data (2MB for those playing at home). Big Finish make a lot of audio. I made the decision to split the article into DW and a spin off lists. However possible other solutions could have been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dresken (talk • contribs) 23:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

story placement

Why is there no mention of where story's take place in the doctors time line as meaner early release listed when they took place in the cd liners 2.26.206.85 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata

Created with the help of {{Wikidata list}}:

• de:Portal:Hörfunk/Wikidata lists/Hörspielserien/Episoden

including Doctor Who audio plays. --Kolja21 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Dark Eyes and Doom Coalition

User:106.68.124.202 considers Dark Eyes and Doom Coalition to all be in the same series as the Eighth Doctor Adventures because of the numbering of CD production codes, which in my opinion seems to be reaching a bit as evidence. But even if not, the two boxset series are also organised as separate ranges to the Eighth Doctor Adventures audios on the Big Finish website. [1] [2] TardisTybort (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Broken transclusion

The transclusion for Philip Hinchchliffe Presents seems to be broken, but I have no idea how to fix it.

Sorry an unexpected consequence of using the visual editor on the Doctor Who: Philip Hinchcliffe Presents article. Fixed. Dresken (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Order of Sets

I guess the new order of series on the page is down to original release, which makes sense on the spin-off page but here just looks like a mess - Doom Coalition follows directly on from Dark Eyes which follows directly on from the Eighth Doctor Adventures; why not put them all together? I recommend putting them together more or less chronologically for the Doctor, after the Main Range at the top (and possibly the Companion Chronicles and the Lost Stories next, as the largest shared ranges). So you'd have: Monthly; Companion Chronicles (possibly moved to the multi-Doctor sets); The Lost Stories (possibly moved to the multi-Doctor sets); Third Doctor Adventures; Philip Hinchcliffe Presents; Fourth Doctor Adventures; The Voyages of Jago and Litefoot; The Eighth Doctor Adventures, then Dark Eyes, then Doom Coalition; The War Doctor; The Tenth Doctor Adventures; THEN all the multi-Doctor sets like Excelis, the stageplays, CDNM, etc. Wouldn't that be easier to follow?

13:59, 02 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiment. While date order seems logical at first, the majority of people looking at the article will be interested in sets based on the incumbent doctor, rather that the release order.

However, the above order has missed some of the ranges listed on the page, so my order would be as follows:

Top of page

Monthly Range; The Companion Chronicles; The Lost Stories;

Chronological by Doctor

The Early Adventures; The Third Doctor Adventures; Philip Hinchcliffe Presents; The Fourth Doctor Adventures; The Voyages of Jago and Litefoot; The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield (placed here because the first 2 series are 7th doctor based, but could be moved to the Multiple Doctor Sets section); The Eighth Doctor Adventures; Dark Eyes; Doom Coalition; The War Doctor; The Tenth Doctor Adventures;

Multiple Doctor Sets

The remaining sets can be placed in an arbitrary order, so have been left as order of release:

Specials; Excelis; Bonus Releases; Unbound; Doctor Who Magazine Releases; The Stageplays; Short Trips; Novel Adaptations; Destiny of the Doctor; Classic Doctors, New Monsters;

Even if the date order were kept, I think keeping sets that contain the same doctor and follow on from each other (particularly the EDAs, Dark Eyes and Doom Coalition) is a good idea.

Additionally, a further edit is required for the Specials section, which currently contains The Third Doctor Adventures and Classic Doctors, New Monsters. These should be removed from this section, as they have sections of their own. Additionally, the Specials section contains The Churchill Years, which is listed as a separate release on the spin-offs page. I think one of these should be removed (probably the one on this page, since other spin-off releases feature the doctor as well).

TheGodOfHellfire (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe that any ordering other than series release date is a matter of personal opinion. Ordering by release date is encyclopaedic. From the required out of universe perspective, the sources indicate the 8th doctor stories are different series - so should be treated as different series on this page. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough TheGodOfHellfire (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No Diary of RIver Song?

Why isn't The Diary of River Song here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhorman (talk • contribs) 11:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The diary of river song is a spin off that happens to have the Doctor gest star95.145.155.227 (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The monthly range

Why is the monthly range linked to its own page and not listed on the main list95.145.155.227 (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I get the basic logic - that it makes this article too long - but surely the saner thing would be to have the main line of Doctor Who audios by Big Finish be at this page, and all the short-run series get their own? Winter's Tulpa (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm increasingly of the opinion that this article should be a list of series, that then links to the list of plays that are on separate pages. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That would work too, though with some cautions - there's no real reason why Excelis or the Stageplays need stand-alone articles, and in practice should link to sections of some larger article housing the misfits, Winter's Tulpa (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Production codes

I am going to remove the production codes. I feel like they add very little to anything and are utterly meaningless to the average reader. It will make the tables freer and able to breathe. Feel free to disagree. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done As discussed on your talk page. Made some quick work out of it using regex find and replace. -- Alex^TW 14:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Colour code?

The page is very bland and it's difficult to distinguish between sections...possibly colour coding would assist with this? Any ideas of the best way to do it - if at all? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say colour coding would be plausible, if it's the same colour for a whole series; i.e. all the seasons for The Companion Chronicles have the same colour, while all the seasons for The Fourth Doctor Adventures have the same colour between them as well, but as a different colour to TCC, etc. I'm planning on redoing the table headers slightly, so I'll put the background parameter in. -- Alex^TW 14:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@TheMysteriousEditor: My thoughts have been to use the primary colour of each series' first release's cover, so I've gone ahead and compiled all of the colours for this page. Thoughts? -- Alex^TW 10:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended content
Colours ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

Good idea - I guess we won't know how it looks until it's implemented in the article, which I think should be done (and possibly include an overview table somehow maybe?). Sorry for not being much use the past few days - I've been pretty busy. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done and  Done. -- Alex^TW 16:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Nice! My only suggestion would be that the table would look better if the dates for certain releases spanned two columns where necessary? I would try this myself but I'm unfamiliar with the "new" template and unsure on how to do rowspans/colspans correctly. EDIT. Oops never mind - I realise now that the N/a's in the "last release" column is for the ongoing series, sorry. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, N/A's are for series that are still in production; where there's a "last released" date, that series is finished. For reference, if you ever need to do what you suggested, set the end date to "start". For example, |end1=start, and the module will automatically make the row span two columns. -- Alex^TW 02:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Did colours and an overview for the spin-off page as well. -- Alex^TW 09:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Past Releases/Current Range

I don't really understand the format here. There's a list of Current Range starting at 1999, and a list of Past Releases starting in 2002. All of them are still available. In what sense is "Last of the Titans" in the Current Range while "Excelis" is in Past Releases? Ordinary Person (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"Last of the Titans" is a singular specials release, in which there are still special releases being released at the present time. "Excelis" is a series release that is no longer releasing new episodes, and hence is a past release. (Why we're comparing a singular release to a whole series, I'm not sure...) The date ranges are the obvious indicator here: current ranges are listed as "(2017–present)", for example, as they are still releasing new seasons, and past ranges are listed as "(2002–2013)", for example, as they have concluded their run. If Big Finish came forth and said "we're not going to release any more specials in the specials range", then the Specials section would be moved to past releases, as it would not be a currently-releasing range anymore. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Page may need to be split or template usage reworked

As of earlier today, this article now exceeds Wikipedia's post expansion include size limit.

The end result is that templates at the bottom of the page may not work.

The most straightforward fix would be to split the page or move some of the section content to the respective {{main}} pages covering that topic.

Other options include changing how templates are used, re-writing some templates so they count less towards the limit, or replacing the templates with modules or rewriting some templates to be wrappers for modules. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that, I'm in the progress of working out tables to convert to modules. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

All fixed. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: and now it's broken again. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Placement of one-off "Specials"

The current list, as well as the one for the spin-offs, is pretty cluttered. I suggest that all of the one-off box sets are compiled into one category, as it makes the page look nicer and distinguishes the actual series from the one-off box sets. I talked about this with Alex a while ago and he made the argument that the one-off box sets are series in their own right, but I disagree, and I have found that conventional fan wisdom is on my side. My suggestion is that RT:DC, DN:K!, Susan's War, J:TDD, 7D:NA, TFNE, CSA, and Lady Christina are moved either to their own category or to the "Specials" category. In addition, it would make the most sense to me to include the Excelis Series, The Veiled Leopard, and Cuddlesome in the "Specials" category, as I have found no rebuttal to this suggestion strong enough to warrant them having the distinction of being separate series. This suggestion is a compromise, I would personally think it best to include Missy, TCY, and CDNM in this category, as I believe having three releases or more should be the cut-off for having the distinction of being a series, but I understand the reasoning behind keeping these as their own series. I will put these changes into place if I don't receive a response within a week or so. Belegityt (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion three weeks ago, I believe. It's not cluttered at all; moving everything into one table would just clutter that table even more.. Each series is in their respective season, ordered by season, grouped by their current status. "One-off box sets" are still that, box sets that are their own separate releases; just because they may have only had one reason, does not make them some sort of "special release". Does a one season TV show make it some sort of "special release"? No, it is its own separate series. Luckily for you, "conventional fan wisdom" is not part of WP:V, and is textbook WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; policy violations of this sort will be reverted rapidly. You even state that "I believe having three releases or more should be the cut-off for having the distinction of being a series", even furthering the fact that this is all based only on your personal views and not how Big Finish actually market and release the series. Your recents edits even split up these series releases; for example, how The Churchill Years's two seasons were no longer grouped together.

Summary: we use Big Finish's definition of a series, and anything going against that will be considered original research and reverted. Happy editing! -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Your argument is messy, contradictory, and invalid. On your talk page, you claimed to initially revert my edits because "we don't necessarily have to categorize each series under what Big Finish categorize's them." I then proposed the idea of not including the boxsets with more than one release, which would sacrifice accuracy with Big Finish's categorization in favour of not violating your admittedly fair peeve with my edits, being that the multi-boxset "series" do get split up with my initial proposal. After I made this compromise, you contradict your initial argument by saying that the proposal is "based only on personal views and not actually how Big Finish market and release the series." I admit that my argument about "conventional fan wisdom" does not fall under Wikipedia's verifiability standards, but yours definitely doesn't either. You follow Big Finish's categorization only when it supports your side and you dismiss it whenever you don't like it. In other words, the categorization is based on your opinion of what you pick and choose from Big Finish's website. You argue that each boxsets is a series in its own right, but you don't do the same for specials. There are currently 11 available releases listed under "special releases" on the article, and this is reflected in the overview as 11 "Episodes". I don't suggest that my proposal will solve all of the problems with the page, but I don't understand how you can be so adamant about keeping the current list when it is as flawed and inconsistent as it is. Furthermore, to refute your point on each boxset being a series because it contains multiple parts, no other piece of media is treated like that. Every book has chapters, that doesn't make each chapter a short story. Every play has acts, that doesn't mean that each act is a play. A one-season TV show still consists of multiple releases, as each episode is broadcast individually. With that aside, until either of us can find a system which is objectively verifiable, we should use the system which is the simplest, least contradictory, and most accurate, which would be my compromised proposal stated above. Also what reason is their for not including The Veiled Leopard and Cuddlesome under "Special Releases"? I get why you might not want Excelis under "Specials" but I see absolutely no reason for TVL and Cuddlesome having their own category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belegityt (talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)