Category talk:Doctor Who serials

Doctor Who Category‑class

	Doctor Who portal This category 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.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

100,000 BC[edit]

I think listing 100,000 BC under 'O' rather than '1' looks rather bizarre, but as the change was reverted I wonder what others opinion is... These categories do not it with numbered entries: Category:Fox network shows, Category:Drama television series, Category:2000s TV shows in the United States. --TimPope 18:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I have to take a position on it, I prefer to put it under "1" for the simple reason that looking in an index under "O" for a title that is numerical is counter-intuitive. --khaosworks 18:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although listing '100,000' under '1' is acceptable in a list of numbers, this isn't a list of numbers but a list of serial titles. It's generally accepted that when doing this we should list it under 'O'. Besides, it only looks 'bizarre' because of relatively recent trends in computers (i.e. lazy programmers) that have perpetuated this mix of numerical and alphabetical orderings. At least with wikipedia we have the option of remedying this. I mean, what would it be like if all the titles starting with 'The' were listed under 'T'? DonQuixote 00:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should be listed under 1, because categories are supposed to ease navigation. Users would looke for it under the character that starts it off. 132.205.15.43 04:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was resolved. See Talk:100,000 BC. --khaosworks 22:44, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Serials[edit]

This list includes Mission to the Unknown, The Five Doctors, the movie, and the new series, none of which are serials. Perhaps a different phrase could be used to describe it, such as "Doctor Who television stories"? Ken Arromdee 17:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can of worms - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 1#List of Doctor Who serials? which was talking about List of Doctor Who serials. General consensus seems to be that we keep it like this since we can't agree on what would be a less unweildy name.

That being said, The Five Doctors was also split into 4 parts on subsequent transmission, Mission to the Unknown is really the prologue to the 12-part Daleks' Master Plan, and the new series is really one 13-part loose story arc. So arguments can be made either way. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 17:42, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Subcategories[edit]

Should the articles be split into First Doctor serials, Second Doctor serials, etc? I think it would look a lot neater. Thelb4! | Talk to me 20:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I like the idea, but some of the categories would be fairly empty. I'm stumped. Sean 20:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We could also consider adding subcategories for historical stories, alien invasion stories, space opera, et cetera; the serials could be categorized by multiple categories (so, for example, Frontier in Space could be under "Doctor Who serials", "space opera" and "Third Doctor stories". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, we could add some stories to already existing categories, like Category:Space Opera, rather than making our own.--Sean|Bla ck 20:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was sort of what led me here... see Talk:Space opera. But I think there's room for both approaches. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah. Well, i think a two-pronged approach would work well. UNIT stories, Historicals, plus broader categories. I like it. I'll try to see what I can do.--Sean|Bla ck 21:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]