Template talk:Doctor Who episodes

Is this template

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. --Meph (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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. — Edokter • Talk • 13:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Classic series

Shouldn't this also have links to the classic series episodes? 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? — Edokter (talk) — 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. DonQuixote (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand what was wrong with the individual season/series templates. — Edokter (talk) — 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" (metafictional mixed-media mini-episodes), and "Death Is the Only Answer" and "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. —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. —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
• 2005 Children in Need episode
• Time Crash

but am unsure how to do so due to the template's complexity. Can someone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 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? 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.) —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 Flax5.

Please feel free to modify it.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

My thanks to Flax5 for modifying it to be in a better part of the template. — Cirt (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Flax5 that this template is a good place to have this link. We both agree so let's please keep it there, thank you! — 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'). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 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. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, no worries. — 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. 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 {{Doctor Who}} navbox, as well as in their own dedicated {{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 this version). --woodensuperman 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. 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 "looks fine" and it's an "important topic" for the missing episodes to stay. --woodensuperman 14:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)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. --woodensuperman 14:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

If the common sense approach of adding the {{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. 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. --woodensuperman 14:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Why sub-sections?

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?

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

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?

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

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)

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)