This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide toDoctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles abouttelevision programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you canjoin the discussion.For how to use this banner template, see itsdocumentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
question about this presentation - what is gained by splitting episodes into 'special' and 'series' ?Twice Upon a Time is presented as beforeThe Pilot - which is counterintuitive for a reader .GraemeLeggett (talk)08:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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.--woodensuperman13:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they provide navigation, and perWP: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_21TALK13:43, 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 aWP:NAVBOX?--woodensuperman13:54, 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.--woodensuperman07:33, 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 quotedWP:NAVBOX, could you please quote which part of NAVBOX explicitly forbids relevant information? Thank you. --Alex_21TALK07:56, 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. StopWP:wikilawyering.--woodensuperman08:38, 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_21TALK09:33, 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.--woodensuperman09:50, 17 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.SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:42, 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 ofLists 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_21TALK21:48, 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.SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're saying it should be listed in an article, andnot 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_21TALK08:11, 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 see no issue with including it here. It's an article directly related toDoctor Who episodes, and thus helps in navigation. --Alex_21TALK13:40, 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.--woodensuperman14:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as you've mentioned multiple times. What exactlybars 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_21TALK14:02, 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 ofDoctor 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.--woodensuperman14:16, 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]
HiAlex 21. I just wanted to justifymy edit the other day. It was entirely to make it so that a link to an episode article would appear as soon as that article is properly created i.e. no longer a redirect. This would mean that no one wouldhave to edit this page for every new article created, butcould remove the templating if they wanted, as I showed. So it was designed to make things easier, not in the sense of making the code easier to edit (I grant you it doesn't), but to avoid relying on editors having to remember to edit this page every time, since the templating could remain in the article indefintely. --TedEdwards23:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but there's also no deadline to add a link. Either way we need to remove the code so that it's in a standard format. Has there been examples of editors forgetting to add the link for any extended period of time? I'm pretty sure it's always been added within 24 hours of the episode becoming an article. --Alex_21TALK23:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Episode article does not yet exist in the mainspace. --Alex_21 TALK04:35, 5 December 2023 (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.SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
