Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)

Ratings changes from where?

I happened to look by this page as I do time to time and was surprised to find that the ratings for 2024 and 2025 had somehow gone up from the last time I checked! The 2024 average now say 3.97 when it's actually 3.71 and the 2025 average now says 3.23 when it's actually 3.17.

Where do these ratings come from since they aren't the actual ones that are not the final 7 day ratings? 2025 isn't too far off but a quarter million out of nowhere for 2024? The Seventh Napoleon (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@The Seventh Napoleon Ask BARB. Here is the edit in which the statistics were modified, and here was the update to the new reference. Comparing the original and updated sites, these updates are indeed correct. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

So effectively there are two sets of ratings for all of these shows but they've decided to go back and change the previous ratings to reflect the new methodology. Seems strange to go back that far. It's one thing to change 2025 in the same year but to change 2024 in Sept 2025 is like closing the barn door after the horses have gone. In the case of the particular ratings for this page the drop from 24 to 25 is now actually larger. Anyway thanks for the reply. The Seventh Napoleon (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Replacement of reliable sources with press releases

Can the IP user who keeps replacing reliable secondary and most importantly independent sources with a BBC press release please stop doing this. Per WP:REPUTABLE, and WP:Source "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which is why we prioritise these sources over a press release, which per WP:PRSOURCE should be avoided when possible. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't use all three ... I mean, how is a television network's press release saying that it will be renewing a show it broadcasts/streams somehow so inherently unreliable that we would need third-party confirmation? The language of PRSOURCE seems aimed at editors (some of them, no doubt, paid) who use press releases to establish notability and/or make PEACOCKery seem neutral. In my reading it can hardly be applied so dogmatically.

It says nothing about press releases that fall into more ABOUTSELF territory, as this one pretty clearly seems to.

If we were so strongly discouraged from using press releases as sources, why would we have a {{cite press release}} sourcing template? Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

But why should we need to use more than one? It's fairly simple information for which we have dozens of reliable, independent sources to use for verification. Any one of those sources is what we should be citing here.

Yes there are instances where we can and do use press releases as an example of WP:ABOUTSELF (which I'd argue WP:PRSOURCE hinges on when it says "should be used cautiously for other assertions"), but under our collective policies that invariably comes with the understanding that we're using them for information that is both limited and can't be readily sourced in a reliable, independent one and if it becomes available in such a source we should be using those instead (as is the case here).

I've never before seen an instance such as this where we have the exact same information in a primary, non-independent source and multiple reliable, independent ones and the latter are the ones being replaced with the former under the flawed claim that such sources are "less credible" Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, there's no reason we not only can't use both, we should. Press releases very often have the advantage over news sites of never being paywalled, allowing a reader without subscription access to a site to independently verify the claim. Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

You are correct in this, a combination of primary and secondary sources is completely acceptable. There is zero need to only use one type of source; both options provided here are valid. Is the claim of "less credible" flawed? Definitely. Does it matter what source we use, as long as the correct information is detailed here? No. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Third party, independent sources are far more valuable for an encyclopedia than first-party ones per WP:V. Press releases can be used but should be replaced with third-party sources that say the same if those exist. Removing third-party sources to replace with a press release is absolutely inappropriate. Masem (t) 12:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

15th Doctor section spoils the end of S15.

Why is there such a major spoiler on this page? It's a list of episodes, not a summary of the major plot developments in those episodes. ~2026-14250-14 (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

We do not filter spoilers on Wikipedia per WP:SPOILER. Thank you. -- Alex _talk 02:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)