Template talk:Doctor Who episodes: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Episode count: Reply |
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Tag: |
||
| (37 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|||
{{WikiProject Doctor Who}} |
{{WikiProject Doctor Who}} |
||
}} |
|||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|||
== Is this template == |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|||
|counter = 1 |
|||
Some users believe that this template is "bulgy" and should not be used. We shall discuss whether this template is needed or not. I believe it is, because iy is more convenient to the thousands of people that use these templates every day. --[[User:Mephiles602|Meph]] ([[User talk:Mephiles602|talk]]) 13:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|||
|algo = old(60d) |
|||
:I said "bulky", which I think it is. We do not need to list ''every'' episode on ''every'' page. That is why we have [[List of Doctor Who serials]]. Episode templates usually cover only one series/season, that has been standard practice. Also, many episode articles already contain multiple navboxes. Replacing the current ones with this one only takes up more space, or if collapsed, takes more clicks to to reach the links. A better place to get more input is [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who]]. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Edokter|<span style="color: #008;"><b><i>E</i>dokter</b></span>]] • [[User_talk:Edokter|<span style="color: #080;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 13:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
|archive = Template talk:Doctor Who episodes/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
==Classic series== |
|||
Shouldn't this also have links to the classic series episodes? [[Special:Contributions/188.221.79.22|188.221.79.22]] ([[User talk:188.221.79.22|talk]]) 11:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== I hate this template == |
|||
The template is virtually impossible to work with, as there is not a single way to preview it, other then on a page where it is transcluded. I just spent too much time cleaning up the coding errors, and each time a change is made, it needs to be checked on the live articles. Why was this template created again? <span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:Edokter|<span style="color:#008"><i>E</i>dokter</span>]] ([[User talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#080">talk</span>]]) — </span> 10:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:I've tried creating a workaround where the main template [[Template:Doctor Who episodes/sandbox]] calls a subtemplate [[Template:Doctor Who (series 7)]], but it adds the complication of nesting templates and it's hard to access the subtemplate directly for editing. [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] ([[User talk:DonQuixote|talk]]) 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::I still don't understand what was wrong with the individual season/series templates. <span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:Edokter|<span style="color:#008"><i>E</i>dokter</span>]] ([[User talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#080">talk</span>]]) — </span> 22:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== The Curse of Fatal Death == |
|||
Shouldn't ''[[Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death]]'' be included in this template? I'm aware that it's a parody, and generally considered non-canonical, but the fact remains that it's an official BBC-produced live-action episode of the series. It's not some obscure thing either – as the article notes, it's been featured on the cover of ''[[Doctor Who Magazine]]'' twice, and is the only parodic story to be covered in the DWM Archives. |
|||
The navigational box already includes such non-canon oddities as "[[A Fix with Sontarans]]" (a ''Jim'll Fix It'' segment where the Doctor meets Jimmy Savile and a boy who recognises him as a TV character), ''[[Dimensions in Time]]'' (an ''EastEnders'' crossover produced as a stand-alone charity special after the cancellation of the series, exactly like ''Curse''), "[[Attack of the Graske]]" and "[[Music of the Spheres (Doctor Who)|Music of the Spheres]]" (metafictional mixed-media mini-episodes), and "[[Death Is the Only Answer]]" and "[[Good as Gold (Doctor Who)|Good as Gold]]" (mini-episodes written by school children). |
|||
I would venture that ''The Curse of Fatal Death'' is just as notable and worthy of inclusion as any of the above. Remember, this template is "Doctor Who episodes", not "Doctor Who canon". The episode has its own niche in the show's history, and the template should reflect this. —[[User:Flax5|Flax5]] 18:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:Since no one has raised any objections in the last week, I'm restoring the episode. If anyone has any complaints, I'll be glad to discuss them. —[[User:Flax5|Flax5]] 15:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Charity specials == |
|||
I prose to ad a 'Charity specials' row: |
|||
* ''[[Dimensions in Time]]'' |
|||
* ''[[Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death]]'' |
|||
* [[Doctor Who:Children in Need|2005 Children in Need episode]] |
|||
* ''[[Time Crash]]'' |
|||
but am unsure how to do so due to the template's complexity. Can someone assist, please? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 15:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:These are already listed on the template (''Dimensions in Time'' and ''Fatal Death'' in the top of the template and the other two in their respective series (2 and 4), Or am I misreading your request? [[User:Etron81|Etron81]] ([[User talk:Etron81|talk]]) 23:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I think he means that the charity specials should be grouped together. I'm not entirely sure that's a good idea, since this navbox groups episodes by production/season – the charity specials were all produced completely independently, for very different reasons, and have no connection beyond the fact that they're for charity. |
|||
::If you ask me, "Children in Need" belongs with series 2, "Time Crash" belongs with series 4, and ''Dimensions in Time'', the 1996 film, and ''Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death'' belong in the no-man's-land between "Survival" and "Rose". While I can see how it might be jarring to give two of the charity specials such a prominent position, they're still the sole on-screen representation of the show during that sixteen-year period, and I think it's best to present all episodes in real-world production/release order. (Perhaps we could even add ''Scream of the Shalka'' for the sake of completion? After all, it was the official continuation of ''Doctor Who'', if only for a little while.) —[[User:Flax5|Flax5]] 23:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== From The Doctor to my son Thomas == |
|||
*''[[From The Doctor to my son Thomas]]'' |
|||
Added link to ''[[From The Doctor to my son Thomas]]'', per suggestion from {{u|Flax5}}. |
|||
Please feel free to modify it. |
|||
Thank you, |
|||
— '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 01:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:My thanks to {{u|Flax5}} for modifying it to be in a better part of the template. — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 02:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with {{u|Flax5}} that this template is a good place to have this link. We both agree so let's please keep it there, thank you! — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 22:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:I disagree. This is not by any stretch of the word an ''episode''; the BBC was in no way involved. It was a personal message from Capaldi. So please explain the reasoning (other then 'I like it'). <code style="white-space:nowrap">-- [[[[User:Edokter|<span style="color:#006">User:Edokter</span>]]]] {{[[User talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#060">talk</span>]]}}</code> 22:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Purpose of navbox is link the TV programme episodes - it falls outside that, so I don't think it belongs. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 23:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::Okay, thank you, no worries. — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 02:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Meanwhile in the TARDIS == |
|||
Why is it that this DVD-only feature gets its own special section? There are other mini-episodes, and arguably, as unbroadcast DVD-only features, Meanwhile in the TARDIS is one of the less significant examples. [[Special:Contributions/216.151.52.59|216.151.52.59]] ([[User talk:216.151.52.59|talk]]) 19:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Missing episodes == |
|||
It is inappropriate to link to [[Doctor Who missing episodes]] in this navbox, as the article represents a specific subset of episodes, whereas this navbox is the general chronological navbox for all episodes ''by series''. The same way that [[List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials]], [[List of supplementary Doctor Who episodes]], or [[List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films]] aren't appropriate. The missing episodes are already linked in the general {{tl|Doctor Who}} navbox, as well as in their own dedicated {{tl|Doctor Who missing episodes}} navbox, so to include here is overkill, as article is already very well connected. Also if we lose this, we can use the episode lists as headers to reduce the space the "above" section of the navbox takes up. (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Doctor_Who_episodes&oldid=894075286 this version]). '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 13:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:The present template looks fine, and should continue to include the missing episodes link as that is an important topic in discussion of the Whoverse. Your mention of the other templates has nothing to do with this one, which is usually presented alone on the episode pages and thus should give all the links to episode related articles. This also weights towards the other topics you mention, all of which seem appropriate and should be added to this template. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 14:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Of course they shouldn't (your attempt to add one of them was already reverted by another editor). This navbox is for chronological seasons, not general topics, nor topics not specific to season-by-season episodes. These are all well linked in other navboxes, and there's no need to clutter up this technically well-crafted template. You need to come up with a better argument than it "[[WP:LOOKSGOOD|looks fine]]" and it's an "important topic" for the missing episodes to stay. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 14:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ec}}Of course the mention of the other navboxes is relevant. Those are where the missing episode article belongs, not here. This navbox should not link to ''all'' the "episode related articles", just the season-by-season ones. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 14:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::If the common sense approach of adding the {{tl|Doctor Who}} template on each episode page were used then your points would be well taken. But since it isn't, a reader coming to Wikipedia to view just one episode page should be given the opportunity to learn, from the template, about all the major episode lists and pages. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 14:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::No Randy, that's not the case. If that was the case then we wouldn't have split navboxes, and neither would this navbox be set to only show certain groups when transcluded. Only the navboxes directly relevant to the article at hand should be present on the article, so that only the articles directly related are linked. There is no connection between [[New Earth (Doctor Who)]] and the missing episodes, for example. It is much more relevant to, say, [[Smith and Jones (Doctor Who)]], but even that would not be possible to navigate to directly. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 14:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Why sub-sections? == |
== Why sub-sections? == |
||
| Line 98: | Line 39: | ||
:In fact, the whole "missing episodes" section should probably go also, per [[Template_talk:Doctor_Who_episodes#Missing episodes|my previous comments]] 5 years ago. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 13:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
:In fact, the whole "missing episodes" section should probably go also, per [[Template_talk:Doctor_Who_episodes#Missing episodes|my previous comments]] 5 years ago. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 13:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
: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? -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub> [[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 13:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
: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? -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub> [[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 13:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
::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]]? '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 13:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::So, there is no relevant guideline that forbids this information? -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub> [[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 21:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[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. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 07:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::There is all manner of additional information we could include in, say, {{tl|Spain topics}} for example, population, area, etc., but we don't because this is not an [[WP:INFOBOX]]. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 07:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::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. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub> [[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::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]]. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 08:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::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. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub> [[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 09:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::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. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 09:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Hounding, now edit-warring. Unfortunate. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub> [[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Pictogram voting comment.png|18px]] '''[[Wikipedia:Third Opinion|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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: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 (Doctor Who)|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? -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub> [[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 21:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::That is not what I said. What I said was: {{tq|...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.}} [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 22:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub> [[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I have also posted at a wider relevant venue concerning this discussion. Cheers. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub> [[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 11:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::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 {{tl|Doctor Who missing episodes}} where you can navigate between them all, and the list of [[Doctor Who missing episodes]] is included in the main {{tl|Doctor Who}} navbox. Including here as well could be considered overkill. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 12:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I have requested the opinions of other editors within the relevant WikiProject. Cheers. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub> [[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 12:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::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? - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 13:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'd agree with moving/restoring it to the above section. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub> [[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 13:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I still don't think it's needed - It's irrelevant if you're looking at a new series episode. {{tl|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 {{tl|First Doctor stories}} and {{tl|Second Doctor stories}} instead? '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 13:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I see no issue with including it here. It's an article directly related to ''Doctor Who'' episodes, and thus helps in navigation. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub> [[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 13:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::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. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 13:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::So by the same standard, you're saying we shouldn't even link [[Doctor Who season 5]] on "[[The Woman Who Fell to Earth]]"? -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub> [[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 13:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::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. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 14:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::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? -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub> [[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 14:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::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. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 14:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::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. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:A missing episodes link should be included and a running episode (or serial, story etc.) tally should not. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 15:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Then there is a clear consensus to include the missing episodes link, I'm satisfied with that. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub> [[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 10:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 12:45, 21 June 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doctor Who episodes template. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days  |
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
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)
- 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)
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
Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2023
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Wild Blue Yonder to 2023 Specials 2600:1012:A133:FA86:4032:BABE:A51E:580 (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done: Episode article does not yet exist in the mainspace. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
- Discuss at Talk:Doctor Who (series 14)#Season 1 vs Series 14 DonQuixote (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- So, there is no relevant guideline that forbids this information? -- Alex_21 TALK 21:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Hounding, now edit-warring. Unfortunate. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- So, there is no relevant guideline that forbids this information? -- Alex_21 TALK 21:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- I have also posted at a wider relevant venue concerning this discussion. Cheers. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- I have requested the opinions of other editors within the relevant WikiProject. Cheers. -- Alex_21 TALK 12:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- I'd agree with moving/restoring it to the above section. -- Alex_21 TALK 13:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I'd agree with moving/restoring it to the above section. -- Alex_21 TALK 13:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- I have requested the opinions of other editors within the relevant WikiProject. Cheers. -- Alex_21 TALK 12:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- I have also posted at a wider relevant venue concerning this discussion. Cheers. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- That is not what I said. What I said was:
- 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)
- 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)