Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Doctor Who serials

List of Doctor Who serials

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of work has gone into this list and I believe it meets the FLC.

It is useful and comprehensive in that it is a clear-defined set of topics (all aired episodes and Shada), and is factually accurate, having contained no uncited information for quite some time. While it does have the current TV template, it is stable; DWM is only released monthly, and barring that, there is little that can change "day-to-day", and even with a DWM release during the months where they're teasing the new season, little makes it to the list (guest stars and episode titles). Will ^(talk) 12:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~I have three major issues that need resolving before any detail can be hammered out:~~ All my concerns addressed now.

originalconcerns

- ~~Headers in the table~~
  - Done Will ^(talk) 10:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Link in headers
  - Can you suggest an alternate place? Will ^(talk) 10:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Normally, such links can be integrated into section text, which happens to be "missing" here. Adding some buffer text to describe important feature of every "era" is the best option. Another possibility is to group all the subsections' text there. This could allow in-table non-wiki headers like those of List of Anuran families, but removing individual season editing might make the article unwieldy to edit. The whole thing has something of a catch-22 quality given that the cell sizes are now wildly different from a section to the other, even under a single doctor. Gyah... Circeus (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've tried to make it consistent between the tables. Will ^(talk) 12:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Will ^(talk) 17:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Displaced ToC without a good justification.~~
  - It'd look like this without calling the template. Will ^(talk) 10:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Circeus (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that redlinks in the other columns are not a disqualification factor, especially as there aren't that many and they seem reasonably well-linked outside this list.
Maybe instead of {{Edit-top-section}}, you should consider installing the existing user script. Trust me, you rapidly find it essential.
- Done Will ^(talk) 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to butt in here... This has nothing to do with FLC requirements. I'm putting that one back in, as it works for any editor, not only those that have some user script installed. That link is there only for everyone's convenience. — Edokter • Talk • 22:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An image, if any appropriate enough can be located, would be nice, but given the media nature, it's unlikely.
- You're right. I doubt there's a scene, other than the diary in Human Nature, that can accurately sum up all 44 years. Won't fix. Will ^(talk) 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I still oppose. Those template notes should be labeled with letters (otherwise you have 2 different notes #1...) and have a proper target: you have notes marker, but no notes for them anywhere! Circeus 00:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Will ^(talk) 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't have red links. Buc (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - says who? All the individual titles have articles. There are very few red links compared with wiki-links. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's not the pages fault that the articles don't exist - and it's not in the required criteria anyway. StuartDD _{contributions} 14:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment And also take in note that red link can also be caused be grammar error. for example Looney Tunes vs Loonay Tunes.The Tramp 15:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Support A well-structured, well-referenced list. Made me quite nostalgic to read it, too! Bencherlite ^Talk 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor concerns: a) Is "Fire on the Set really necessary on this list? b) The lettered note "c" doesn't work, though all the other lettered notes do. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]