Jump to content

Talk:List of Doctor Who home video releases/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

LiT split into its two volumes

As the discussion above has tailed off, I've changed Lost in Time back into its two constituent Region 1 volumes as before, but splitting them off from the main tables and adding explanetory text about the different release formats in each region to make the nature and purpose of LiT clearer to the reader. This brings the list into total consistency, with each entry, including the two LiT volumes, being an actual "DVD release" in one region or another, per the article title, as well as being consistent with the recent change in boxsets being grouped where appropriate (for those who consider LiT a boxset). This also makes it immediately clear what, in terms of serials and number of episodes, is included in each volume of LiT. It also reverses the huge imbalance of LiT getting 12 separate entries on the list, as well as the consequent "padding out" of the Second Doctor list, making clearer the actually quite sparse range of Troughton DVDs available.

To summarise:

  1. The purpose of this article is to list DVD releases. It is now consistent with this purpose throughout - the reader shouldn't be subjected to purpose changes in the same list.
  2. Splitting LiT into 12 separate entries grossly imbalances our weight of coverage of what is a single release in all regions, or two releases in Region 1. This removes that problem.
  3. The clarity of the list is improved - it is now much easier to see what constitues LiT, as well as making the actual Hartnell/Troughton DVD release tables much clearer by removing entries that aren't DVD releases.
  4. Box-sets common to all regions now have their constituent serials grouped together, the same is now true of LiT for those who consider it a box-set.
  5. The potential confusion of noting the number of episodes for some complete serials, and the number of existing episodes for LiT constituent serial-fragments, in the same list in almost the same way, is removed. i.e. ("The Celestial Toymaker, (episode 4 of 4)", "An Unearthly Child, (4 episodes)"). A minor ambiguity, but an unnecessary one.

In the interests of getting this sorted out, and given that there was no consensus in the first place for the original change in splitting LiT, I would ask that anyone who disagrees with this change back to what is largely the status quo ante, does not simply revert, but either improve upon it, or bring any objections here to voice them along with reasoned arguments based in logic and policy to counter the points made above. Let's have none of the "I don't like it" stuff - it's unhelpful, gets in the way, and has no place in consensus as explicitly stated in WP:CONSENSUS. If we're to allow a change that subverts the purpose of the article, as well as bringing various other problems with it, there needs to be good reasons to do so, not a subjective preference in favour, no matter how many people have it. Hopefully we can finally bring this saga to an close now. Thanks all, Miremare 21:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Firstly just because the discussion has tailed of does not mean you won. The saga as you put it was maintained through one user, you. It is you that dragged it out standing alone against the other users (Angeloz eventually joined your cause I admit but not until you had resisted consensus along for quite some time alone). Just because some users dropped off over time does not mean their veiws are suddenly invalid, it means they grew tired of constantly arguing with you. It certainly doesn't give you license to change everything they fought to maintain while their backs were turned. As for your arguments, the purpose throughout is not consistant, the purpose is to allow readers to see what has been released on dvd by finding it on the list, it is much easier to find if in order. Putting LiT under separate headings also "grossly imbalances our weight of coverage"". The clarity of the list is not improved as that information was already included further below in the article and being out of order makes it harder to read. The box sets on the list that are grouped together are the ones that are continuous and common to all regions (this was what everyone could agree on when the change was made), the list remains consistant with it in order. And there is no ambiguty, minor or otherwise, with (4 episodes) and (episode 4 of 4), it's pretty clear that one has 4 episodes and the other has 1. Please note that none of the arguments I have just made qualify as "I don't like it" stuff (alot of the argument in the previous discussions didn't either by the way) and there are plenty of good reasons to do so. I will grant you that the original change was premature, but there has since been agreement with the majority of users that splitting them is the better way. Your subsequent change goes against this and is as much a problem as the original change was. I will also grant you your reequest to discuss before changing it back the way it should be, purely as I do not wish to participate in an edit was with you. It currently remains unchanged not because you are right, not because you have the "better argument", certainly not because you are in the majority, but because you are stubborn. Yours is an opinion as much as anyone else's. Finally I just want to say that if you want to end this saga simply concede, you are the minority. 165.228.203.166 (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Additionally I have actually reverted some of your other changes. One is the Tenth Planet/Ice Warriors deletion for which you keep mentioning a previous consensus. I did a little research the last comment on that discussion was made in April and the source was not available until May. The source exists and you are completly alone so far in disputing it. Also I have replaced the number for Marco Polo, a minor but important change. As has been repeatedly stated and backed up, it has just as much right to be included as anything on LiT. In an effort to appease you it is in small font and the main text is also kept as a foot note. This is insufficient, but is a compramise. It is included with The Beggining and made clear that it is not a complete serial. It never in anyway pretends to be a dvd in it's own right. It is there because it was released in some way, but it is clear in which way. 165.228.203.166 (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I am in favour of the way Lost in Time is listed as two items. Everything that appears on a single dvd should be kept together. If things are released on separate discs thats one thing, but when separate episodes are on a single physical object that cannot be broken up (without actually breaking it) then they should not be broken up on the page. Mhtmghnd (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


Notice regarding the discussion/s above

The continued insistence of the anonymous editor above of playing the numbers game was strange enough to lead me to take a look at the users who have taken part in these discussions to see for myself exactly what the numbers were. Only three registered users commented: one who was in favour of the split, one who was "on the fence", and me. But then there's the anons, the source of the apparently all-important majority. There are five of them in favour of the split and, to get straight to the point, they're all the same person. Here's why. They all edit from the Australian Telstra network as shown by the helpful links on every anon WP editor's contrib page:

  • User:203.45.112.118 [1]
  • User:58.166.112.21 [2]
  • User:165.228.203.166 [3]
  • User:139.168.132.246 [4]
  • User:124.183.122.83 [5]

Could just be a very unlikely coincidence? Well, compare their very narrow editing histories:

So well done Mr Anon, you've succeeded in making me feel a bit foolish for feeding a troll for so long without realising it, but enough is enough. Your credibility, as well as your "majority", is gone. Now please go away and stop disrupting the article and talk page. Miremare 23:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


Hello, my name is Peter Edwards and I will sign all post that way in future. I am Special:Contributions/139.168.132.246, Special:Contributions/124.183.122.83 and apparently Special:Contributions/58.166.112.21. I am not Special:Contributions/203.45.112.118 or Special:Contributions/165.228.203.166. I did not lose track of who I am, but is due to me using an internet cafe which apparently does not stick to the same numbers (don't really understand how this works). I have never attempted to deceive and alert other users immediately when I realized 139.168.132.246 had changed to 124.183.122.83. I did not notice the change from 58.166.122.21 but having re-read previous statements with that number can tell you that that was me too. I apologize if this has confused other users as this was not my intention. Also you will notice that I have recently been swayed towards the grouping of Lost in Time. I actually returned to the talk page to say how I like the way it is currently set up and that it is an improvement on both the previous split version and the even more previous merged version. Also I like the current version of Marco Polo. I do wish we could leave Tenth Planet and Ice Warriors on the page. I would also like to say that I have found the behavior of 203.45.112.118 to be offensive and have stated in the past that his/her behavior is over the top. I do not know if this is in fact 165.228.203.166 as well but believe this could be the case. For the record I have no interest in X-men but do think Game of Thrones is awesome. Peter 121.217.126.125 (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
And apparently I'm 121.217.126.125. Peter 121.217.126.125 (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Peter: I'm sure you'll agree that the only people to have taken part in the discussion on that "side" in the last month all being anons, all sharing the same location, all sharing the same ISP, and all editing almost exclusively on Doctor Who and Game of Thrones, either adds up to a quite staggering coincidence... or is highly suspicious. So I hope you will forgive my scepticism here. However, if it really is the former and you are a different person from the other anon as you say above, then you have my apologies and I would suggest you register an account to avoid further confusion. Thanks, Miremare 19:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Account created, scepticism understood and apology accepted. I would like to say again that I was only initally on the same side as the other user/s. I was only opposed to the merging initially as it was confusing squeezed in amongst the rest of them. I was open to having it merged while under a separate heading and having now seen it that way actually prefer it. We also agree on the current listing of Marco Polo being enough. I wanted it included on the list but it does not need to be anything more than it is. The other anons do not agree. I have also personally reverted edits by Special:Contributions/203.45.112.118 and I like to think I'm friendlier too. While there are several similarities, there are also several differences. Either way with me on your side and her/them on the other, the unidentified (though apparently female) user's all important majority is most certainly dead. Again I am sorry for any confusion I have caused and hope we can put this behind us. PeterEdw (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
So your saying that we're the same person because we live in the same country (the sixth largest in the world) and we happen to like two of the same show. You've clearly never heard of tact. The fact that we disagree with each other and there have even been edits from one reverted by another means nothing? Clever. Also I'm not happy about the assumption of Mr Anon. Half of us are women you know. 165.228.203.166 (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
No. And I'm not particularly happy about having my time wasted for a month and a half so that makes two of us. Miremare 19:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Key to Time

I noticed a user has recently merged the regular and special editions of Key to Time into one. Throughout the rest of the list we have kept the special editions separate and feel we should do the same here. Additionally it now reads that in region 1 the stories are also available separately. I presume this is true but don't live in North America so I'm not sure. If this is the case we need to be clear as to whether this availability applies to the special edition, the regular edition or both. Whichever is the case, that edition should also be split by episode to keep with the rest of the article. Any serials that are available separately in at least on region are listed separately (eg Time-Flight and Arc of infinity - only separate in region 1 but listed separately). It is only when serials are only available together eveywhere that we list them together (eg The Rescue and The Romans). Also I'm a little confused as to whether the region 2 and 4 releases count as special edition or not. While I believe the content to be the same as the region 1 special edition and the release dates closer, the region 4 (and I assume region 2) doesn't actually say 'special edition' on the product. PeterEdw (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The change removes a fair bit of repeated text, though granted it's not quite consistent with the rest of the list, as they are very much two separate releases. Perhaps a compromise would be to reinstate the cells for the original release as with other re-releases on the list, but only listing the serials on the re-release. Also mentioning "limited release", "re-release", "vanilla-release" and "special edition" all together is potentially confusing as it could conceivably indicate four different editions. Suggest something like this: Miremare 18:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
16 098
099
100
101
102
103

 The Key to Time
Season 16 box set initially released in Region 1 only with minimal restoration and extras. Each serial was also released individually. All regions later received the Special Edition below.		 26 x 25 min n/a n/a 1 October 2002
The Key to Time – Special Edition
The Ribos Operation (4 episodes)
The Pirate Planet (4 episodes)
The Stones of Blood (4 episodes)
The Androids of Tara (4 episodes)
The Power of Kroll (4 episodes)
The Armageddon Factor (6 episodes)
Only available as a box set in all regions.		 26 × 25 min. 24 September 2007
Limited release

16 November 2009
Re-release
 7 November 2007 3 March 2009
Looks good and less cluttered or confusing to me Miremare. So I have no problems with it. Unless there's a detail that's overlooked that I don't know about. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me as well - however, the Special Editions are also available seperately in Region 1 Amazon link for Kroll special edition Etron81 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Works for me (with the separate for region 1 note). I'll change it. PeterEdw (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually it only partly works for me. It addresses the Regular/Special release issue but not the individual serials available separate so list separate issue. 203.45.112.118 (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Tenth Planet & The Ice Warriors

Since there's been a bit of an identity argument above (it's why I sign myself as Angeloz in any discussion) I thought it best to separate it from the discussion on whether The Tenth Planet and The Ice Warriors should appear on the list. I just want to add while the list might take some getting used to I do think an improvement over what was and will help those not an expert on the subject. If people have been reading my comments then you might know I'm in favour of including them in the list. Especially if there is a source and The Reign of Terror seems to be getting a release. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I repeatedly asked, to no avail, the IP who kept adding these to cite just one source that explicitly states these two serials have been announced for DVD release, but he would not do so. The only source being touted as an announcement of Tenth Planet/Ice Warriors on DVD in fact does nothing more than note that the two serials are among those that have not been allocated a release slot, but groups them into what it "expects" will get a release in 2013, with no indication of why it expects this. So this is a case of WP:REDFLAG. You mention Reign of Terror which, as another serial with missing episodes that was recently announced for DVD release, is a good example of what I mean, because 2E does announce these things, and reliable sources from websites to newspapers do report on it. But none of this has happened with Tenth Planet/Ice Warriors. Miremare 21:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the problem is that some users are interpretting the source in different ways. It is a little unclear in it's wording and therefore should not be used as a diffinitive source. For those of you who think it should be included I suggest patience. If they are coming out, a more obvious source will arise soon enough, hopefully one with an actual date. Either way I think it's safe to say they won't be released for at least a year or two. Mhtmghnd (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think these Titles should be added to this list, for consistancy if nothing else. Other Serials that don't yet have Region 2 Release dates are here, but their status is "TBA". Surely these two could also be added in the same manor? Kiwibeca (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Tenth Planet and Ice Warriors the "TBA" ones on the list have been announced for release. Miremare 21:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
True, but "Shada" has been placed in this Table. Kiwibeca (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Shada was announced in Doctor Who Magazine sometime last year. You may find this link of interest, though none of the reconstruction-related stuff has been confirmed. Miremare 16:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion?

Why was this article put up for deletion. It's a very usful list and I'm highly opposed to the idea. 203.45.112.118 (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I'm equally baffled. I definitely don't want this article deleted. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I Third the Motion. This Article *should not* be deleted. Kiwibeca (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well, but I think the reason is the entries have become bloated and there is too much information. Why do we need all the Lost in Time entries for the 1st and 2nd Doctor, they should be gone and left with the boxset entry. Also where the stories have information under the story name like what box set it is part of, should be gone as well. It's too messy and I preferred when it was a simple layout. My thoughts only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamieoverton (talk • contribs) 04:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a DVD list. The Lost in Time information I use because even I don't have them all memorised from time to time i.e. the stories and especially the episodes that they have. Also for non-experts Lost in Time would be a meaningless name of unknown stories. Are people supposed to mind read the information? I thought the whole point of Wikipedia is to provide information. Not mystery. I'll grant you the format takes time to get used to but I think it's helpful. And the reason the box sets are included are because some people might want to use the information to buy them. How are they supposed to know about them if it's not there? Also when people can no longer buy them it'll be an accurate record of what was available and what they were called. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rename?

Hi. Since this article also lists Blu-ray releases, I was thinking maybe we should rename it "List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases" or even just "List of Doctor Who releases". Obviously we would need to reword the intro slightly to include Blu-ray references too. Thoughts? PeterEdw (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases" sounds good, though "List of Doctor Who releases" is a little too broad. Miremare 15:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
"List of Doctor Who home video releases" also makes sense but then it has to account for VHS etc. Bouket (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Main image

Does anyone with the full set of classic series DVDs feel like updating the main image on the page. There have been quite a number of release since that image was taken and it would be nice to be up to date. Looking at the file history it's been updated once a year so it's due for another one. 203.45.112.118 (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree the main image coudl do with an update - but as this article now covers DVD and Blu-Ray releases from both the classic and new series, I think a more representative image would be a selection of Classic DVD releases from across the range (and from various regions to show the differences in covers) as well as including New Series DVD/Blu-ray sets. I think that including everything might be a bit too much to fit into one image, so maybe representative samples from each range? Etron81 (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
True, but it's still mostly covers the classic series. I'm not opposed to having an image of samples from everything but would really like to see an image with the full set of classic stories available too. Maybe we could have two images on the page? 203.45.112.118 (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I think an image containing an example of a R2/4 (either as they look the same) and a R1 classic series DVD, and a Blu-ray (again I think the regional covers are all the same) of the new series would cover all bases. Don't think we need anything like the shelf-full-of-everything image we have currently. Miremare 12:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Other Formats Releases

Does anyone think this page should also include information on VHS, Betamax, Laserdisc, UMD release information. thanksSfxprefects (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If sourced, yes. Here in the UK, all surviving Classic Series episodes (as of December 2003) were released on VHS between 1983 and 2003; but the other formats fell way short. According to my (admittedly unsourced) notes, there were seven Classic Series releases on Betamax (1983-86); two on V2000 (1983-84); and six on Laserdisc (two by BBC Video; four by Encore Entertainment). Something to mention for all of these is whether the episodes were complete, or edited. There's quite a lot of information at http://www.timelash.com/tardis/ but I don't know if it can be considered a WP:RS.
As for UMD, there were a few New Series releases - definitely the whole of series 1 (in October-December 2005, as four separate volumes per the May-September 2005 DVD releases) and some (if not all) of series 4 (e.g. ser. 4 vol. 1 was released 13 April 2009, cat. no. BBCUMD 2964), but I kind of lost interest in the UMD releases not long after that. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the need for sourcing but IMO it would be preferable that the older formats have a separate article. This article is already huge and will continue to grow until all episodes are released. These older formats will have no additional releases and, thus, when the article is finished it wont get any bigger. Links to it could be provided in the lede and the see also section. It should be mentioned that all older format released are mentioned in the individual articles for each serial. I am not sure that every single item is sourced but those that are will give a starting point for creating the table. You might also consider adding release info for the audio CDs of the serials that have occurred. MarnetteD | Talk 19:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Do anyone think the British Board of Film Classificationinformation is very actuate for VHS release dates below is a link to the earliest release of an unearthly child it says Classified 08/02/90 and released 06/01/90 but how actuate it is I do not know surely you would classify it before you released it not the other way around. http://www.bbfc.co.uk/AVV090922/ thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I would say that 06/01/90 (6 January 1990, if you are unfamiliar with British dates) was the release date proposed by the BBC, and that there was some delay in getting classification, which resulted in the actual release being put back a few weeks. This page gives the UK VHS release as February 1990. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

VHS releases

Wouldn't it be a good idea to make a page for List of Doctor Who VHS releases too? VHS Who is very different than DVD Who. I hoenstly think that there should be a list of VHS releases, and maybe) to make a note for each one (for example Revenge of the Cybermen which came out 2 or 3 times on VHS, with slight alterations for example. Plus there is enough associated releases (such as The Jon Petwee Years, Cybermen - The Early Years) and box sets (such as The Davros Collection, The First Doctor Special Edition Box Set) to really make it different from the list of DVD releases. /// TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I did mention it above but we need to find suitable references i did have a look and there are references on the British Board of Classification website obviously we would start with an unearthly child first and here is the link http://www.bbfc.co.uk/AVV090922/ but i am not sure how accurate these dates are i was think of contacting 2 Entertain for a list of dates. You don't happen to have any idea where we could find these dates so you. I have also setup a sandbox User:Sfxprefects/sandbox2 for us to work on Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of Twitter as a reference is not authoritative

The use of Twitter is not an ideal citation and there should be an effort to get the direct/authoritative reference rather than a tweet. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The #classicdw twitter account labels itself "The Official Classic DOCTOR WHO tweets from 2entertain". The same 2entertain that releases Doctor Who on DVD. I don't get how it's not considered official. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
See WP:TWITTER. I could create a Twitter account, and call myself "The OFFICIAL Wikipedia Tweets", and then use it to spout a whole bunch of crap. Calling yourself "official" doesn't make it so. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm no expert on this nor in the same country but they often have photos of stuff yet to be released i.e. covers and DVD menus. Also they link to video clips 2entertain made. Usually first. For example they have the menu of The Tomb of the Cybermen Special Edition that isn't released yet as well as other Revisitations 3 stuff. Plus other stories. Not to mention they had an accurate photo of the release schedule for last year. Months in advance. I think it might be Dan Hall but I'm not certain. Also it sometimes re-tweets Mark Ayres. The guy that does the sound on the DVDs and CDs. It might be listed on one of their official sites but I don't know as I don't go there except the old Restoration Team site. Either it is them or someone is constantly breaking in and taking photos of stuff not released even test discs as well as computer screens and DVD covers. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I've found more information on the BBC Press Release site www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worldwidestories/pressreleases/2011/01_january/cdw_youtube.shtml (I hope the link is acceptable because that's my proof). Also the Restoration Team also have a twitter account listed on their official site as well. So is that an acceptable enough standard i.e. the BBC or an official site? -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
To be clearer the twitter accounts are @RTnewsfeed and @classicdw. -Angeloz 123.2.138.148 (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

UMD releases

I have made a sandbox of the UMD releases User:Sfxprefects/sandbox3 although does anyone think it should be merged with the DVD/Blu-ray release in a section or should it have it own page called List of Doctor Who UMD releases please let me know what you think. Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. As with the earlier VHS thread I am for a separate article. Tables get cluttered up and harder to read so easily. I have a question since I am unfamiliar with this format. Do you think that it is going to be around for any length of time? Or are changes happening so quickly that this will be supplanted be the decades end? Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Five releases - four in 2005 and one in 2009... only playable on the PlayStation Portable which is about to go obsolete... I don't think we'll see a flood of releases somehow. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for filling me in Redrose64. In that case I don't see how its going to merit its own article and I don't think it is worth adjusting the table on this one to include it. Maybe the info could be included as a footnote in this article and/or mentioned briefly in the articles for the episodes that were released in the format. Whew the technology keeps changing faster I've even seen an article that stated that Blu-ray is going to be supplanted by something better within a few years - though I can't remember if it said by what. MarnetteD | Talk 19:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Have checked - the BBC Shop now only lists four UMDs, only one being DW: Doctor Who: The New Series Volume 2 (UMD). The others are The Office, Catherine Tate, Little Britain, the last of which features Tom Baker as voiceover throughout. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Betamax Releases

Does anyone have any information on Betamax releases I was going to make list of Betamax releases but so far can't find any websites mentioning releases. Anyone have any ideas thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In the UK they were released in parallel with VHS at first, but ceased after about July 1986. There were seven titles on Beta: Revenge of the Cybermen, The Brain of Morbius, Pyramids of Mars, The Seeds of Death, The Five Doctors, The Robots of Death, The Day of the Daleks. See The TARDIS Library. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Other Formats Releases

I have created a list User:Sfxprefects/sandbox7 of formats that Doctor Who was released on. I would like to hear what people think? If approved i will move it to List of Doctor Who other format releases Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of the early videotape releases were edited compilations (the original Morbius was only 60 min IIRC) - maybe this shoudl be noted in the "episodes' column for the relevant releases? Otherwise it looks like they were unedited episodic releases. Etron81 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Yep, normal practice in the UK was to chop out the closing titles from episodes 1/2/3, the opening titles and recap scenes from eps 2/3/4, and make a few more cuts so that the whole thing would fit a 90-minute tape. This really pissed us off, and after a few years stories were released unedited, and most of the earlier releases were given an unedited rerelease. This didn't happen for all - The Time Warrior, for example, never got an unedited VHS release, we had to wait for the DVD.
Brain of Morbius was the worst case, because it was slashed right down to 60 mins, and IIRC this was because it was released simultaneously in four formats (the only such instance): VHS, Beta, V2000 & Laserdisc, and they wanted to ensure that people got the same version regardless of format - so had to go by the restrictions of the most restrictive format of the four, which I think was Laserdisc, so the three tape formats were similarly busted right down to 60 mins. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Episode numbering

The episode numbering is different from List of Doctor Who serials (starting from #109). --Ahellwig (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's explained in the article that you just linked. DonQuixote (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
It is also explained in the 4th paragraph of the DVD section of this article. I guess we should be glad that Season 6B, Slipback and the 4 6th Dr stories that were cancelled don't figure into things or we'd probably have two or three more numbering systems to deal with :-) MarnetteD | Talk 18:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Inferno SE

Worth adding to the main article yet? Source: Twitter ChrisChapman81 -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"I heard that" hardly seems reliable to me. Could we wait for something more official? Might be part of a "Revisitations 4" if it is going to occur so it might also be worth waiting for the other titles. MarnetteD | Talk 19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Even if it didn't begin "I hear" (which is tantamount to Wikipedia:Hearsay), we'd still want something more reliable than a tweet. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Streaming and Downloads?

Now that Amazon and iTunes (here in the USA) are offering some of the episodes as downloads, whould we add the availability as downloads to the existing charts, or should there be a separate article? --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Propose addition of UPC / EAN

As someone who has recently become interested in The Doctor, I'm having a fair amount of trouble getting a handle on the various series and seasons. A lot of people, vendors, manufactures, and just people in general seem to use the terms interchangeably. Would the inclusion of the UPC/EAN be possible, and would it be considered useful? I think it would be useful to me in deciding which version of a given DVD/boxset I would like to try to collect, balancing price against content. Any and all input would be appreciated. SampleAndy (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies up front but this is an encyclopedia. We are not here to recommend things to you one way or the other. There are plenty of chat rooms or blogs out there for you to search out to get that info. UPC/EAN are selling tools and not relevant to the info presented here. Give your self time you have a fun and wonderful road in front of you as you discover are favorite Time Lord. MarnetteD | Talk 04:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
As MarnetteD says, Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue. In addition to which, numbers like UPC/EAN vary across the world; and some countries have more than one system. For example, the Region 2 edition of The Mind of Evil is EAN 5 051561 032691 but that only appears on the back, below the barcode (some retailers do use it, see Blackwell's). In the UK this DVD is better known as BBCDVD 3269 since that's printed on the box spine, the booklet and the DVD labels, and is used by many resellers (see BBC Shop (look in the "Product Info" tab) or DVD.co.uk); according to Amazon UK, it's ASIN B00BPCNNXS; and other resellers have other systems. In the USA, Australia, etc. the numbers will be different. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

DVD/Blu-ray references

What is the reliable sources to references to for DVD/Blu-ray, reason I ask I want to reference all dates and then the article might become a featured list. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

For Region 2 releases that are still available, the best source is the BBC Shop website. Their URLs are straightforward as well; you simply append the catalogue number (lowercased, and less any spaces) to the base http://www.bbcshop.com/invt/ For example, the box set "The Beginning" is BBCDVD 1882, so the URL is http://www.bbcshop.com/invt/bbcdvd1882 similarly, "Spearhead from Space" (Blu-ray) is BBCBD 0230 which gives http://www.bbcshop.com/invt/bbcbd0230 --Redrose64 (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Doctor Who Magazine might be a good source, as well as DVD Talk (region 1, gives release date and details of special features) or other DVD reviews/announcements from reliable sources (not fansites). Glimmer721 talk 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I do not have any Doctor Who magazines, did find BBC America Shop http://www.bbcamericashop.com/dvd/doctor-who-the-space-museum-the-chase-15544.html but they don't seem to want to list release dates for anything. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Would anyone deem this website reliable TVShowsOnDVD.com http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/releases/Doctor-Volume-Release/1626 its ran by TV Guide which is a weekly American magazine Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
If it's run by TV Guide, then definitely. This press release, for instance, looks great. For Region 4 I have used Ezy DVD before. Glimmer721 talk 00:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The Doctor Who Restoration Team is also a good source, especially in terms of restoration for the text part of the article. Glimmer721 talk 00:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Restoration Team don't normally give release dates; but when they do, only the year is given. This is because it's not their call, but that of BBC DVD/2 entertain. If you do find a specific date or month, verify it against the BBC Shop site. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes in most cases they don't (although some mention that a title was released for a special occasion like the 40th anniversary), but they do give details on restoration and VidFIRE as well as why some releases may have been pushed back, etc. There is a text portion of the article that is largely unreferenced, so it could help there. Glimmer721 talk 20:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Spearhead from Space no sure if the 2007 release is listed

hi, I am looking for references for the third doctors DVD release and I noticed a DVD date that does not seem to be listed for Spearhead from Space released 02/07/2007 in the UK is this already listed and I am just not seeing it, here is the link to be BBC Shop [6] and the British Video Assocation [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvin 101 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 17 October 2013‎

That's the so-called "O-Ring" edition. It's identical to the one released 29 January 2001 (BBCDVD 1033) except for the cardboard slipcase, which the original lacked. There were seven other O-Ring editions released on the same day (2 July 2007): The Five Doctors; Genesis of the Daleks; Earthshock; Remembrance of the Daleks; The Movie; The Hand of Fear; Revelation of the Daleks. These were all "limited editions" (although the quantities manufactured were unspecified, and the covers were un-numbered). The slip case had entirely new artwork, resembling the covers of the New Series DVDs released up to that time (for example, Series 3 Vol. 2), the primary feature being that the illustration was contained within a circular frame, and so these reissues are known as "O-Ring" editions. On all eight, the logo is orange and the background outside the ring is purple. Within the slip case is a normal silver-grey plastic case, with the original artwork completely unchanged - they still carried the original catalogue numbers. These "O-Ring" editions, despite being more elaborate, initially attracted a much lower retail price, of GBP 6.99 instead of the normal GBP 19.99 - the purpose was to shift the stocks from the warehouses, because most of them would later be replaced by a "special edition" or similar, the first of which was "The Five Doctors 25th Anniversary Edition", which was also given an "O-Ring" style slip case, although differing slightly - including having a brown background. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorting Release Dates

I tried to reconfigure the release dates to allow for sorting by (chronological) date. I tried January 30, 2006 (2006-01-30), but the dates still sorted by alphabetical. Does anyone know the correct format? I'll change the dates if I'm shown the correct format.Docob5 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd take a look at the way that List of English Football League managers has been set up. it uses dates in tables like this
{{Hs|2006-06-26}}26 June 2006
=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Finished Hartnell's chronological (sortable) update. Hoping it works well. I'll wait before completing the others.Docob5 (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The {{dts}} template was specifically designed for date sorting in tables, and is easier to use than {{hs}} since you can use {{dts|30 January 2006}} - there is no need to put the date twice, nor to put it in an unfamiliar format. You can see it in action at User:Redrose64#Done, third column. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

DVD references

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could tell me with regard to referencing Region 1 Doctor Who DVD's if I we take tvshowsondvd.com as a reference does it have to be referenced to the storys page or can you use multiple referncing if all releases are one page. see here http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/shows/Doctor/4939 I am just trying to speed up the referencing because by the time it all finished most will most likley be dead links Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The Specials blu-ray terrible picture quality

Just thought it might be worth mentioning here, if not in the article, that the Blu-ray releases of the "Specials" (The Next Doctor, Planet of the Dead, Waters of Mars, The End of Time) are all (cheaply) standards-converted to 60i, resulting in horrible juddery pictures when compared to the original broadcast. They also exhibit chroma blending problems. 2entertain told me they have no plans to remaster them. http://horman.net/doctorwho/specials.php David (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your original research, please publish it in a reliable source so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, sure, no problem(!) That's exactly why I put it here, knowing it would be of interest but not citeable. David (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Just an update Series 1-4 has been digitally remastered and will be available as part of the Series 1-7 Blu-ray boxset 4 November 2013. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk)
My concern is that they won't bother redoing the Specials themselves at the correct framerate though, when they've already got "acceptable" 1080i encodes already done.

The underwater menace - proposed 2014 release

There is a reference to an upcoming release for 'the underwater menace' with animated versions of episodes 1 and 4 currently in the list. While I don't doubt that there is an attempt to release a DVD like this I feel that the current cited reference fails WP:RS. Having spent some time looking for other sources including this on the list before it has been formally announced is still just speculation.

Unless there is a better reference found I'll remove it from the list. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no WP:RS for the delay to the release of 'the moonbase' as well. I appreciate that it is likely to be delayed but unless we have a source for it we have to either change it to be TBA or leave it as october. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
as the Underwater Menace has been added again I feel I need to re-iterate the fact that the single reference for its 2014 release cannot be considered reliable. Just because someone claims to be an expert it does not mean that they are. There are currently no sources that can be considered reliable and no other sources at all for this release. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 08:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The new reference that has been provided here is still a very flimsy source. It is second hand reporting of an article in Doctor Who magazine number 460. There are two main problems with what the source. First, It says 'the presentation is uncertain' and thus it cannot be used to state that there will be animated episodes. Second, it says 'seems likely to be released in 2014' which is pure speculation and cannot be read as fact. The original article would be a reliable source if it contained anything more than speculation. Until there is a credible source that states exactly what is going to be released and a hard date when it is going to be released it cannot be included in the list. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A question for you all. Does [8] this consist enough evidence for adding the DVD release? It's not like we know any other useful information like how many episodes will be animated or when it'll be released. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

All that means is that a trailer for TUM has been classified. It is not definite indication that a release will happen. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
That was my first thought but I didn't think it would hurt to make people aware that something more concrete than a single unverified source now exists. It's worth keeping an eye out for an announcement. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Enemy of the World DVD Not available in United States

The Enemy of the World (Region 1(?) USA & Canada) as listed is only available in Canada. (Referenced as being sold by Best Buy Canada) I doubt this would stop people on the border from going into Canada and purchasing the DVD. But Amazon USA does not carry it. Attempts to get info from BBC UK Shop on why Enemy of the World was NOT available in USA were very unsuccessful. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

First Doctor releases

If you sort the "First Doctor release" by season, there is an empty "3" between Time Meddler and Ark. I've tried to figure what is causing the anomoly but was unsuccessful. Does anyone know how to correct?(this discussion item can be deleted once corrected)Docob5 (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

checkY fixed it. the row that contained the 3 was a whole row and should have been part of the following row (with a rowspan of 3). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

How should we list non-English-Language releases

Where should non-English-language be shown?

As this is the English Wikipedia, I would not give them "undue weight."

My recommendation:

  • If there are a lot of cases of individual stories being released on different dates in a given language, add a column to the tables called "non-English-language" with a mere listing of the language-code and date with a footnote for references and additional information.
  • If there are only a handful of such cases, insert the same information in the appropriate region-column.
  • Where the first translations of most or all of a season in a given language are released on the same date as either individual episodes or as boxed sets, put that at the top or bottom of the section, similar to what is in Season 7 but maybe at the bottom instead of the top. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


Story Numbers

Do the story numbers have any official source? Why are the off by one compared to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials ? e.g. List_of_Doctor_Who_serials => Warriors of the Deep : Story 130 Doctor_Who_DVD_releases => Warriors of the Deep : Story 131 The different starts at 109 (Shada) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.104.206 (talk • contribs)

From List of Doctor Who serials: "The three-digit story numbers are not official designations but are merely to serve as a guide to where the story stands in the overall context of the programme. There is some dispute about, for example, whether to count Season 23's The Trial of a Time Lord as one or four serials,[2] and whether the uncompleted Shada should be included.[3] The numbering scheme used here reflects the current internal practice of describing "Planet of the Dead" (2009) as the 200th story, used in the official magazine's 407th issue.[4] Other sources, such as the Region 1 DVDs of classic Doctor Who serials, use different numbering schemes which diverge after the 108th story, The Horns of Nimon (1979/80)." DonQuixote (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Big Finish Talks Back?

This seems an odd inclusion. All the other DVDs and Blu-Rays contain Doctor Who fiction as broadcast on TV or via the internet. This is an interview disc! Including this suggests that the article should also include Reeltime interviews and other such stuff. I think it clearly doesn't deserve to be there, and will boldly remove it. Stephenb (Talk) 20:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

VHS release merger and name change

Heads up guys, I merged the article on VHS releases, and changed the name of this article to 'home video releases', It was a full merger so check out the VHS release section to see if it needs any post merger cleanup to make this article more self consistent.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  01:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Specials since 2005

Are the specials that have aired since 2005 considered part of the series alongside which they were released, or are they considered introductory episodes to the series that followed them? If it's the former, then logically the 2015 special, "The Husbands of River Song" should be listed as part of series 9, since it will be included in that series' box set. But if it's the latter, then the 2008–10 specials should be considered part of series 5, and the 2013 ones part of series 8. Dave Lars (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Please respond further at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Edit Request: The Husbands of River Song. Alex|The|Whovian 11:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"The Beginning" collection contents

Clearly, all descriptions for this product which I have provided on my edit summaries mention "An Unearthy Child", "The Daleks" and "The Edge of Destruction" (Stories 001-003) as its contents. "Marco Polo" is just a FEATURE included in the set. Nevertheless, some people do not want to accept this fact, and keep reverting my edits, adding "Marco Polo" back as a properly released story. Here is ANOTHER example of this: https://www.amazon.com/Doctor-Who-Beginning-Unearthly-Destruction/dp/B00ANDGYRM/ref=dp_ob_title_dvd. Edggjhh (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself, as I noted at User talk:Edggjhh#List of Doctor Who home video releases. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to the covers I provided. Edggjhh (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

2nd and 3rd Doctor stories not ordered correctly by date

When I sort by date (for the Region 2 releases, not sure if it's true for anything else) it doesn't work properly for the 2nd and 3rd Doctor stories. I think it tries to sort it alphabetically instead of by date. I'm not sure how to but if anyone else knows how it'd be very welcome. PaintTrash (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This is because the column isn't purely dates, but contains text as well (this includes the references), so the whole of each cell is treated as a string. To force strings resembling dates to be sorted chronologically, wrap them in {{dts}}, like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll go ahead and fix that for the 3rd Doctor releases too. - PaintTrash (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Complete series 10 region one

First let me state that I am not asking for the 14 November date to be removed - even though the source says "details still to be finalized" - I just want to state my own WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and point out that, based on the little info available, the upcoming Christmas episode is to feature Capaldi and introduce Whittaker. To date the featured Dr Christmas episode has always been in a box set for that Dr. It is likely that the complete series 10 wont be released until after that episode airs so it can be included with that set. I know that means it will have two Christmas specials on one set but that happened with series nine. As I say this is all quesswork on my part and I could easily be wrong. I do wonder if the words "tentatively scheduled for" (or words to that effect) might be included in the table since that is more or less what the reference says. MarnetteD|Talk 04:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

That's what I've been thinking as well, which is why I was surprised when it came up on TVShowsOnDVD on my regular check-up of the site, before I added it. It's also possible that different regions will add the Christmas special to the DVD differently. -- AlexTW 07:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Or indeed that both regions will release without "Twice Upon a Time" and that story will receive only a single release. Until all of this is confirmed, by the way, we don't know how many 60 minute episodes the set will feature. DBD 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Hence my revert of "1 or 2" back to "1". We deal with what we currently have, nor what could be. -- AlexTW 03:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Just to note that all the Xmas episodes that have had single releases have eventually wound up in a season boxset. Again this WP:OR on my part so going with what the current sourcing states is fine. Should things change then the article can be changed. MarnetteD|Talk 04:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Added the official press release for Region 1; it will only have the 2016 Christmas Special. -- AlexTW 08:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on this AtW. I had a thought that 2017 might show up on a "The Complete 12th Dr Set" like the one they did for Matt several months after he gave up the role. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on List of Doctor Who home video releases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Doctor_Who_home_video_releases/Archive_3&oldid=1092049896"