Jump to content

Template talk:Doctor Who episodes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why sub-sections?

[edit]

question about this presentation - what is gained by splitting episodes into 'special' and 'series' ? Twice Upon a Time is presented as before The Pilot - which is counterintuitive for a reader . GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IPs kept adding the Christmas specials to the episode count for series. Separating specials from series was to reinforce the fact that specials are separate from series. Also, you can revisit Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)/Archive 1#Why is Last Christmas part of this series. Feel free to change the presentation to a better one if you can. DonQuixote (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the film listed with the original series?

[edit]

There was no production overlap between the original series and the 1996 film. It may be awkward to have a third category between the original series and revived series, but it's far more accurate. 128.206.165.255 (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)anon, 17 November 2021[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2023

[edit]

Add Wild Blue Yonder to 2023 Specials 2600:1012:A133:FA86:4032:BABE:A51E:580 (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Episode article does not yet exist in the mainspace. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Series 14 or Season 1? NewNuWho?

[edit]

Confirmed By The BBC. Ncuti's first Series as the 15th Doctor is going to be referred to as SEASON 1. Not Series 14. I think it's a very good idea to call this Season 1, because it needs to stand on it's own two feet again. Also on BBC IPlayer they've bookended The Revival Series (NuWho) Catalogue from 2005 to 2022 and put the 2023 specials and Ncuti's stories in a new Catalogue starting with 2023. 92.41.21.208 (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss at Talk:Doctor Who (series 14)#Season 1 vs Series 14 DonQuixote (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Episode count

[edit]

Why is there a running total of number of episodes at the top of this navbox? Navboxes are for navigation, not information, and the total number of episodes provides no navigational function whatsoever. This is just clutter. --woodensuperman 13:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the whole "missing episodes" section should probably go also, per my previous comments 5 years ago. --woodensuperman 13:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they provide navigation, and per WP:NAV-WITHIN, information relevant to the topic is not listed as unallowed in the context of navigation. Could you please cite a guideline that forbids this information? -- Alex_21 TALK 13:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:COMMONSENSE for a start! Listing the number of episodes is not a navigation function. We do not do this for any other navbox of this kind, so what is the justification for the inclusion of this here? How does listing the number of episodes "facilitate navigation between [...] multiple related articles", the sole purpose of a WP:NAVBOX? --woodensuperman 13:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, there is no relevant guideline that forbids this information? -- Alex_21 TALK 21:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAVBOX. Navboxes are for navigation, not information. Anything that doesn't provide navigation has no place here. I don't need to justify its omission, you need to justify its inclusion. --woodensuperman 07:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is all manner of additional information we could include in, say, {{Spain topics}} for example, population, area, etc., but we don't because this is not an WP:INFOBOX. --woodensuperman 07:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant to the topic, hence it's inclusion, given the unique difference for this particular programme between stories and episodes. Given that you quoted WP:NAVBOX, could you please quote which part of NAVBOX explicitly forbids relevant information? Thank you. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is random information, it does not belong and does not provide navigation, it's common sense and accepted practice that we do not have additional information or unlinked text in navboxes as it just increases the size unnecessarily without providing any navigation. WP:NAVBOXES may help you understand. Stop WP:wikilawyering. --woodensuperman 08:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can gain a clear consensus for its removal after seven years of inclusion, I see no reason to argue. Nevertheless, reasoning has been provided for its inclusion, as was requested. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided any reasoning for inclusion other than "it's relevant information". You need to demonstrate how it facilitates navigation between the articles in the navbox. --woodensuperman 09:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hounding, now edit-warring. Unfortunate. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: I would tend to agree that this is both temporary information subject to constant change, and also that navboxes should serve navigational and not informational purposes. So I would agree that the episode count is not appropriate for inclusion in the navbox. I also would have no idea, from looking at this template, what "Stories" refers to or what it means for an episode to be "missing", so if these things are relevant, they should be presented with context and explanation in an article, not with no context or explanation in the navbox. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stories are exactly what are listed in this template. For example, An Unearthly Child is the first serial and story of the programme, which is made of four episodes, but we do not list those separate episodes. Same as how "Army of Ghosts" / "Doomsday" is a singular story and listed as such, despite being two episodes. The episodes at the separate articles of Lists of Doctor Who episodes are grouped and numbered by story, not by episode.
I understand that you may not personally understand what a missing episode is, and that is exactly why we include the link, for navigation (as the other editor continued to quote, though I'm not sure how navigation helps them watch my edits) to the exact article that will explain what those missing episodes are. This argument confuses me - you don't understand what they are, and thus you believe it should be removed, instead of being included so as to help you understand what they are? -- Alex_21 TALK 21:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I said. What I said was: ...if these things are relevant, they should be presented with context and explanation in an article, not with no context or explanation in the navbox. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're saying it should be listed in an article, and not the navbox, as I said. This is provided by, interestingly enough, adding the link to the navbox to give navigation to the article that does just that. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also posted at a wider relevant venue concerning this discussion. Cheers. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've pointed out before, why would you need to link to the missing episodes from, say "The Curse of the Black Spot"? The missing episodes are already have their own dedicated navbox at {{Doctor Who missing episodes}} where you can navigate between them all, and the list of Doctor Who missing episodes is included in the main {{Doctor Who}} navbox. Including here as well could be considered overkill. --woodensuperman 12:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested the opinions of other editors within the relevant WikiProject. Cheers. -- Alex_21 TALK 12:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong feelings on whether the missing episodes are linked in this navbox or not, but I do think it is a bit misleading to have them show up in a "Related" section for all episodes and seasons. Does it make more sense to have it in the above section alongside the original series to make it clear that it is related to those? - adamstom97 (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with moving/restoring it to the above section. -- Alex_21 TALK 13:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think it's needed - It's irrelevant if you're looking at a new series episode. {{Doctor Who missing episodes}} is transcluded on any of the missing serials, this should be enough for navigation. Alternatively a switch where it only appears on seasons 1-6? Or include it in {{First Doctor stories}} and {{Second Doctor stories}} instead? --woodensuperman 13:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no issue with including it here. It's an article directly related to Doctor Who episodes, and thus helps in navigation. -- Alex_21 TALK 13:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already linked on all of the missing serials. It doesn't make a lot of sense linking to it from new season episodes, when you can't even navigate between The Pilot (Doctor Who) and The Woman Who Fell to Earth by means of a navbox. --woodensuperman 13:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So by the same standard, you're saying we shouldn't even link Doctor Who season 5 on "The Woman Who Fell to Earth"? -- Alex_21 TALK 13:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, that makes sense as it's a season-by-season overview. The missing episodes article doesn't fit that criteria, and already has its own dedicated navbox as well as being included on the main topic navbox. --woodensuperman 14:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as you've mentioned multiple times. What exactly bars an article from inclusion in another navbox if it has its own? Are you saying an article can only be linked in a maximum of two navboxes? -- Alex_21 TALK 14:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying there is a redundancy and an irrelevance. Missing episodes is a different topic to the season-by-season lists. And missing episodes are already easily navigable by the dedicated navbox and article. What I'm saying is we don't need to navigate to the missing episodes from every single episode of Doctor Who since 1963, especially not from new series episodes. Yes, they're relevant to seasons 1-6 of the original series, and relevant to the Hartnell and Troughton era, hence my alternative suggestions three comments above, but we don't need to continue to link to everything else. --woodensuperman 14:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is a good argument for not including it, someone reading an article on a new episode may be interested in looking at info on the missing episodes and wouldn't know which season or episode to click on for that. It is still an episodes page, so I don't think it is inherently out of the scope of this navbox. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A missing episodes link should be included and a running episode (or serial, story etc.) tally should not. — Bilorv (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is a clear consensus to include the missing episodes link, I'm satisfied with that. -- Alex_21 TALK 10:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Doctor_Who_episodes&oldid=1259771822"