Forum:Series Boxes

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Series Boxes

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Now a couple of days ago a member edited the series box templates

To go from this

To This

Template:DWTV

I recommend they be changed back and here is my reasoning

1. The editor said that there is no difference between Xmas and normal episodes. but in fact 90% of Xmas spechails DON'T feature that series on going companion.
2. the xmas spechails are also in a different year to the rest of the seires something that also needs to be highlighted
3. The episode names run into each other Eg. Partners In Crime .Fires of Pompeii Not Partners in Crime * Fires in Pompeii
4. The series 6 gap was also removed as with xmas this gives the feeling of one episode airing after anougher with no substanccial gap. If you go by production code series 4 lasted 3 YEARS!!! and with only 5 extra episodes then normal
5. Mini episodes look full length
6. Major confusion if a person hasn't visted the series page

7th and final These are important bits of navigation in this wiki and there information is given in a confusing and False way!!! Joshoedit 02:40, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

So now its time for you to decide....

Change Them Back

1. --Mini-mitch 13:10, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
2. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:50, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
3. --Revanvolatrelundar 14:05, January 10, 2011 (UTC) (agree with The Thirteenth Doctor's point and mini episodes should be included too)
4. --Gousha 00:41, January 11, 2011 (UTC) (I think the sub-categorization also makes it look better)

Keep Them As They Are

Neither

I don't see my preferred shape represented here. I'd prefer them to go to no wording other than the name of the episodes. It's completely unimportant to navigation whether an episode is "Christmas", "mini-episode" or whatever. What matters for navigation is that the episodes be listed in the order in which they were transmitted. (Series 3 is a special case. Because it's not possible to place The Infinite Quest in a particular chronological spot, it needs the identifier of "animated".)

What I'm hating in nav box design is the "creep" that's setting into them of people putting more and more lines of text so that they become longer and longer. They should be about the most economical listing of items — and most decidedly not about labelling everything to the nth degree.

This is especially true of series navigation boxes as these are not set to auto-collapse. Thus, if they get longer, the page does too. And that's bad, from a visual design perspective. (I don't particularly understand why series nav boxes are auto-open, but that's a separate issue.) My vote is for returning to them to my most recent edit of each of the boxes, and not anything that's been displayed upthread. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 23:26, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realise Joshoedit hasn't been completely honest in his explanation of the choice. He's given two different examples, upthread, but neither is mine.

The choice is between those above and this:

Point by point rebuttal

Y'know as I think about this even more, Josh's points are exaggerations designed to prove a point. They aren't, any of them, genuine objections. Let's look at them point-by-point:

1. "90% of Christmas specials don't have the feature that series' ongoing companion". Ridiculous. Half of them don't. TCI had Rose, TEOT had Donna, ACC had Rory and Amy. Not sure what in the world that has to do with navigation, though.
2. "Christmas specials in a different year to rest of series". No they're not. They're at the start of that year's production. TCI is first of series 2, ACC is first of series 6, etc.
3. "Episode names run into each other". OMG. You're seriously going to blame one typo that was inherent in the original, unmodified box? Come on. That's a matter of bad typing, not bad design.
4. "The gap year". Yep, I think we're batty to have both a series 4 box and a 2009 specials box. It should all be one box, according to how the production team experienced it. Story pages are, after all, real world pages, not narrative ones. Therefore, they should be organized in such a way as to emphasize and highlight the real world. So series 4 did indeed last three years. But that's a different argument to whether the box, as it stands, has been visually improved through simplification.
5. "Mini-episodes look full length." Huh? How can a title look like anything, much less a runtime? Runtime has nothing to do with navigation. Just nothing. Why don't we make a special deal out of Journey's End then? It's extra-long. Should we make a separate line for that?
6. "Major confusion if a person hasn't visited the series page". Um, no. There's no confusion in a simple list of episodes in broadcast order. The original box design is way over-complicating things. And if the user is confused (though I'm not sure how they could be) all they have to do is click the series page link on the top of the box.
7. "...information given in a confusing and false way." Again, there's nothing false or confusing about listing episodes in the order in which they were broadcast. The one thing that is confusing about all these new series boxes is why "The Next Doctor" is on the series 4 box, when it came out on the specials box set. Again, though, if the series 4 and specials boxes were merged, the confusion would be gone. At least we would be going according to a consistent standard —that of the production team's perspective.

In sum, then, not a single one of Josh's points really holds water. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 15:26, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Well.....

1. Donna at that point was supposed to be a one off!!! and WASN'T the main companion of the pervious or following series!( And the End of Time well She had 2 Scenes in the actuall Christmas Episode, THATS A CAMEO, NOT A COMPANION, And still she was away around for the same time as TRB and PIC but we don't count that do we?)
2. UHHHH I Don't care about production THERE STILL BROADCAST THE OTHER SIDE OF NEW YEARS DAY TO THE REST OF THE SERIES
3. AHH Yeah they do!
4. Agreed

5&6. They Where not overly Complicated i could look at them and say oh thats an xmas special, thats regular, thats in the spring half ETC. you could get the information form those boxes ALSO they showed sufficant gaps wich the other one didn't

First half of 7. The Confusing thing is above it makes archiving better also it gives the Illusion That Xmas and mini episodes look 45 minutes and is broadcast one after the other with no break 2 fatel flaws.

Second half of 7 Take that up with Admin

8. Design changes to template and page layout should be brought up on pages like this and voted and discussed before changes are made I would like to see proof of this Joshoedit 06:16, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Unsure

1. Whilst I prefer the original version, the newer one also includes the mini-episodes, which although they are shorter in length, still count. If the original version made sure to include these in the series box, I think it would be better. --The Thirteenth Doctor 14:00, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

The orginal had mini episodes, Do you mean written in as part of the episodes? Its just series 3 i canged back to show on this forum and the original template didn't have a mini episode, mini episodes form memory where on the boxes but where separated from the main series like christmas was Joshoedit 19:24, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

If the original had the mini episodes included as well, then I'm all for going back to the original. --The Thirteenth Doctor 22:54, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Archivist's notes

While this was once a "hot button" issue, it's been completely obviated by {{NavBox}}. Thus, this entire thread is pretty much moot.

czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 06:24: Mon 31 Oct 2011