Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who

  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DW)
WikiProject Doctor Who (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject discussion

Contents

Season articles layout changeEdit

Please be aware that a number of editors plan to change the layout of the episode tables given in the classic-era season articles, without any notification or further discussion; the discussion can be found at Module talk:Episode list#Sandbox version update, and the proposed layout can be seen at Special:Permalink/881631649#Serials. -- /Alex/21 02:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"Seasons" and "Series": Notes in article space; counts in infoboxEdit

From what I gather from the many discussions of the "season versus series" quirk across the various Doctor Who-related talk pages, the principal reason not to address it in the articles themselves (those I've looked at with that in mind, anyway), but only "behind the scenes" (project MOS, talk page FAQs, wikitext comments, et cetera), appears to be that the circumstance, in and of itself, lacks notability. I have no opinion on that.

However, common sense suggests that when you follow a convention that is noticeable and isn't self-explanatory, you should explain it, otherwise the uniniated reader may end up being unnecessarily confused. IMO, this is such a case: It's unusual for a TV series to consist of "seasons" as well as "series", so someone who's not already familiar with the background will likely wonder whether there is some qualitative difference underpinning the word choices, or whether it's merely a matter of idiosyncratic terminology, or whatever. By using the convention, you're implicitly raising that question - so you ought to provide an answer along with it.

As for supplying separate counts of "seasons" and "series" in the infobox in the Doctor Who article (and elsewhere?), the same point holds, but even more so. At minimum, the difference needs to be explained (inline or as a footnote), if there is one. That being said, combining the two fields into one seems like a much better solution, no matter what the combined field is called. The current situation strikes me as analogous to an infobox about a bridge crossing from one country into another as saying it's "50 metres plus 150 feet" long, based on the circumstance that one country uses metric and the other imperial measures: True, as for as it goes, but rather badly missing the point of an infobox, which is to provide the basic facts ("how long is the bridge") in a basic way (using as few figures and sets of units as necessary).

In further support of this approach:

  • Seasons and series are combined into a single category, Category:Doctor Who series, as they should be. WhIch of the two terms is used as the category title is secondary.
  • Template:Infobox television documentation explcitly says to "[u]se one or the other, not both" of the num_seasons and num_series parameters.
  • The num_episodes parameter is routinely used to mention stuff that's a bit different, such as specials, TV movies, webisodes, et cetera. There's no reason not to approach the season/series counts in that vein.

Ordinarily, I'd consider those minor changes which I'd go ahead and make myself, but the amount and intensity of discussion about this point made me think that would not be advisable in this case. ;)

- 89.183.221.246 (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The WP:CONSENSUS (which is longstanding well over a decade now) is to use both terms. The reasoning for this is well referenced. As to the template documentation this is why WP:IAR exists. The bridge analogy is pure sophistry and is not useful. MarnetteD|Talk 23:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology. And if you look at the wikicode for {{Infobox television}}, you'll find that it was deliberately set to allow both for Doctor Who. -- /Alex/21 00:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, once one reads the project MOS, everything makes perfect sense. So why not make that information easily accessible to the casual reader, who, it seems to me, is just as likely to wonder about it as an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter? The notability argument (OP, first paragraph) may militate towards keeping that information out of the body text, but how applicable is it to footnotes and the like aimed at improving the very clarity of the article itself? Not at all, I should think, considering that the use of such notes across Wikipedia articles is fairly ubiquitous.
- 89.183.221.246 (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Season article modulesEdit

Bringing to attention the matter I raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Arbitrary break: The current module creates false information for The Daleks' Master Plan at Doctor Who (season 3) and The Mind Robber at Doctor Who (season 6), whose different episodes were written by different people. The module needs to allow for different entries in the separate rows where necessary (I have literally no idea how or even where to do this). Thanks, U-Mos (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Already does now. Fixed last week. -- /Alex/21 22:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Excellent, relevant articles edited. Minor note: the coding won't allow links to appear for writers of later episodes in the serial, even if it's the first instance of their name. U-Mos (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: this was your implementation with the "removeWikilinks" function. -- /Alex/21 22:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed it was, but it was created when there were no writer_# and directer_# parameters. There could be several ways to handle this. One option could be maybe to create 2 empty arrays (one for director, one for writer) then add to it when a new string appears and if it already is listed, delink. Another option is to only use the current code for non-numbered parameters (so DirectedBy, not DirectedBy_#) and the editor adding the episode list data is responsible for not overlinking any _# parameter. --Gonnym (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The latter seems like a good solution to me. In the articles I edited, the links are already only included where needed. U-Mos (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


Doctor Who PortalEdit

I'm involved in a related British TV programme and came across the Portal:Doctor Who. I made a small change to the "What's happening" section (about 2020 series 12 coming) but that section does seem a tad redundant without better relevant dated information. Also a link on that section pointed outside the portal and Wikipedia which is not the general purpose of a portal (I removed it). Just wondering if anyone on this project is interested in maintaining/curating that portal. There's plenty of scope and a good example is Portal:Star Trek. Londonclanger (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion at Template talk:Doctor Who episodes#Missing episodesEdit

Should a link to the missing episodes page continue to be linked on the {{Doctor Who episodes}} template? Discussion at the above link. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for writers on series 12Edit

Can some editors take a look at Talk:Doctor Who (series 12)#Unreliable source for writers and try to reach a consensus about what information should be included? I've said my piece there and am happy to leave it to others, but if my edit is to stay reverted, I'd like that to be the decision of more than one editor. Thanks. Amedee123 (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Doctor Who".