Talk:Doctor Who story title controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Doctor Who Portal

Contents 1 The 10th Anniversary Radio Times 2 The Controversy 3 Remembrance 4 2005 and beyond 5 Silurians 6 Story numbering 7 Trial on VHS 8 DVD releases, Official Website, etc. 9 Article title ("Controversy") 10 On-screen titles: "Part" vs "Episode"

[edit] The 10th Anniversary Radio Times

I do not currently own a copy of this but I did read through one at the 20th anniversay convention in Chicago. As I remember it most of the stories, like Marco Polo, The Aztecs, The Romans, The Web Planet, etc., etc., were called by these familiar titles and not simply listed by the title of the first episode of the story. If any wiki contributer has a copy of this can confirm or correct this please feel free to add to this discussion (and change back my edit on the main page if it applies).MarnetteD | Talk 15:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not confusing it with the 20th Anniversary special? Everything I've read goes for the "they used the title of the first episode" (see for instance the Pixley article linked from the page). Timrollpickering 15:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for making me double check timrollpickering. It must have been the 1974 DWFC mag that someone showed me at the convention. I still own a copy of the 20th ann. special and the thing I saw in '83 looked much different than it. MarnetteD | Talk 22:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Controversy

As noted elsewhere in Wiki's 'Dr Who' articles this is one of those areas that seems to have passionate defenders on all sides. As for me, I tend to come down on the side of those who defend the titles that were applied in the mid 1970's. These were used again and again until we became familiar with them. Indeed some of them continue to be used to sell the stories today. Why they were replaced by titles that don't seem to have been important to the creators of the stories, except to loosely hang a production coded serial together, is something I don't entirely fathom. I'm not trying to start an argument here. I actually find these debates to be quite fun and I sure understand the desire to be accurate in a certain O/C, pedantic way. I have done the same thing so many times myself. The only two title changes that make me go ack! are 100,000 B.C. as it is so inaccurate to apply it to any of the action in any of the 4 parts; and Dalek Cutaway. My congrats on those who created the well reasoned article about this subject. MarnetteD | Talk 15:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The debate can be fun, although the ferocity (which has now largely declined) can be overwhelming at times. As an attempt to guess at the reasoning, the titles applied in the mid 1970s do not appear to have been universally used even then - some such as "The Dead Planet" (Serial B), "The French Revolution" (H), "The Crusaders" (P) and so forth are given in the 1976 edition of the Making but not in later books like the Program Guide, whilst other works and early DWMs include some such as "The Tribe of Gum" (A), "Beyond the Sun" (C), "World's End" (K) and so forth. A few of these survived well into the 1980s - indeed it seems very difficult to see a period of consistency when every story guide, official magazine, licensed merchandised and so forth used the exact same list for every title. When you have a listing that is already in flux it becomes much easier to accept other possibilities. Also a lot of the other stories also have "titles that don't seem to have been important to the creators of the stories, except to loosely hang a production coded serial together" - "The Aztecs" is in my opinion a crap descriptive title and "Temple of Evil would be much better, but the former is the one that got into fandom at the time. "Beyond the Sun" was chosen as "the accurate title" (because it's used on the first, but not the second, version of the 1974 listing) over "The Edge of Destruction" by a DWAS exec meeting because of BBC document use (although we now know that even at the time someone had tried to correct the error). Other than being a few years later, what is the real difference between the change from "The French Revolution" to "The Reign of Terror" and "An Unearthly Child/The Tribe of Gum" to "100,000 BC"?

As for silly titles this is by no means unique - as I say The Aztecs isn't much at all, Galaxy 4 isn't a very accurate description of those four episodes and The Dalek Invasion of Earth has already happened when the story starts. ;) Timrollpickering 15:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Very well put. Thanks for adding your thoughts to the discussion. :)) MarnetteD | Talk 22:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remembrance

Wasn't the first episode of Remembrance of the Daleks just called Remembrance? If so, why is that not part of the title controversy, given that the same thing happened with Invasion of the Dinosaurs and it is listed here?

No. It was always Remembrance of the Daleks, Part One. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:14, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 and beyond

There should be (IMHO) a section added for the new series, as some sources seem to feel that, for example, "Aliens of London" and "World War III" are seperate stories, and some (such as the BBC's "Bad Wolf" website) treated them as a single two-parter. Ravenswood 21:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but it's not really a title controversy, though. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silurians

Several subsequent reference works opted to give the title as merely The Silurians due to the fact "Doctor Who" is actually not the name of the lead character.

Where is it actually stated that this is the reason, rather than that it's a combination of the series and story title? A lot of titles got used in this form away from the shows themselves.

Has any episode guide ever tried to rename the the episode of The Chase called "The Death of Doctor Who" for the same reason?

Also the creatures aren't called Silurians! Timrollpickering 09:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Story numbering

I removed the anon IPs edit about the new series because it's really describing the story numbering problem more than any "title controversy". That being said, is this at all notable enough to talk about somewhere? The strikes against it are that it's largely a fan-based phenomenon, and may be too trivial a matter, since it affects only episode guides that insist on a sequential running order (rather than season/serial or season/episode). Any thoughts? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trial on VHS

The BBC Video release of the season was as a boxed set with the Trial overall title, but split into the four individually named serials spread over three tapes as The Mysterious Planet, Mindwarp and Terror of the Vervoids/The Ultimate Foe, respectively.

I haven't got the set to hand, but my recollection is that these titles only appear on the base of the tin, whilst both the video sleeve and the tapes themselves (both on the labels and the start) just go for The Trial of a Time Lord. Has anyone got the set to check?

Also are there international variants? Timrollpickering 09:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD releases, Official Website, etc.

So over the last several years, various portions of the BBC have agreed on certain titles under which to catalog and market the early Hartnell stories. As these are the only names under which the stories are, and probably will be, made commercially available, it seems rather odd not to at least mention this tidbit -- perhaps in the context of what effect these events do or do not have on the ongoing debate, and the logistics for that effect (or lack thereof).

Regardless of how "official" this word might be considered in the end, the practical impact seems rather profound. At least as far as the market and any new viewers are concerned, the titles decided upon are the effective and only titles for those serials. This draws a bit of a line in the sand between the old guard who care to squabble about these things and the practiical face of the situation. And to not document this fact strikes me as kind of ridiculous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.13.38 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 2 March, 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Article title ("Controversy")

In regard to title of this article and of the UNIT dating controversy, I really think the word "controversy" is far too fraught with meaning for what is essently a dispute among a fandom. How about we rename it Doctor Who story title debate? -Jonathan D. Parshall 05:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On-screen titles: "Part" vs "Episode"

This probably isn't the article to discuss it, but I'm hoping someone here might be able to answer the question, and maybe suggest an article to insert this trivial nugget of information.

Which serials used "Part N" in their titles, and which used "Episode N"? I haven't found this information in any on-line resource I can find, and my own classic Dr Who collection is very limited.

I ask because the IMDb listing for Doctor Who has now been split into episodes, and every episode is listed as "Part" when some should really be "Episode". (IMDb always uses on-screen titles). I've been submitting the odd correction for those I know, but I'm not aware of any general pattern. --KJBracey 14:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The individually titled episodes did not have Part or Episode numbers attached to them. When they began to do so, it was "Episode" all the way until the The Green Death. When the "time tunnel" titles came in with The Time Warrior, it became "Part" and stayed that way until the end of the classic series in 1989. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that the Doctor Who Reference Guide shows whether they were referred to as "Part" or "Episode", so you can check there. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Magic, Khaosworks. Thanks. --KJBracey 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have further detail, if the Doctor Who Reference Guide is correct. Up to and including Inferno, it was "Episode 1", then from Battlefield to The Green Death it was "Episode One", then from The Time Warrior it was "Part One". --KJBracey 20:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read somewhere that Destiny of the Daleks was a one-off exception, having "Episode" - anyone got a tape to hand to check. The Ice Warriors just has "One", "Two" etc... Timrollpickering 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

For those with Outpost Gallifrey access, this point has been addressed on this post. In summary:

Seasons 3-10 use "Episode", with the exception of The Ice Warriors which just uses "One" etc... Seasons 11 onwards use "Part", with the exception of Destiny of the Daleks which uses "Episode".

A digit is used for seasons 3 through 7, bar The Power of the Daleks, The Abominable Snowmen and The Invasion through to The War Games. A number is used from season 8 onwards.

Timrollpickering 13:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)