Talk:The Fourth Doctor Adventures

Table Column
Is it just me or does it seem a little ridiculous to have a column in every table for 'Doctor', considering the 1. Literally every single entry is the same and they're not merged and 2. the title of the page is "Fouth Doctor Adventures", which seems explanatory enough. 0003c9fe ☎  01:03, January 24, 2018 (UTC)


 * I also consider it redundant. But before removing it, let us wait if somebody has an objection/explanation why it could be useful. Amorkuz ☎  12:57, January 24, 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess it might have some purpose if another Doctor appeared for a story but I agree the title of the series is enough. --Borisashton ☎  17:34, January 24, 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware another Doctor already has appeared for a story and isn't mentioned, and it seems rather pointless to only use an entire empty column for something that has only happened once in the fifty stories on this page, and could quite easily go into the features section. 0003c9fe ☎  21:44, January 24, 2018 (UTC)


 * It is important (and not always easy) to distinguish well-thought design decisions from legacy remnants of the Matrix Past. I strongly suspect that this is the case of the latter. There are several ranges where the Doctor column is really indispensable. The Main Range and Companion Chronicles are primary examples. There most every story has a Doctor and they are constantly changing with no discernible pattern. I agree with the opinion that having a column that always has the same Doctor in it or, alternatively, is only filled in in one or two stories out of dozens is not an efficient way of providing information. After all, the goal is to give readers the most relevant information in the most easily digestible and searchable format. It would be pointless (and is rarely done) to state the Fourth Doctor as the Doctor here, or River Song as the featured character in tables describing The Diary of River Song (audio series). And indeed, an occasional Doctor will be perfectly visible in the featured column (perhaps, as the first one there). Amorkuz ☎  21:04, January 26, 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "Doctor" column is redundant; after all, it's specified in the series name.


 * "After all, the goal is to give readers the most relevant information in the most easily digestible and searchable format." Now if we could only apply that to infoboxes as well ;) Shambala108 ☎  22:52, January 26, 2018 (UTC)


 * So say we all. Amorkuz ☎  23:05, January 26, 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion
Actually, after looking at the tables once again, I have a suggestion. If I understand the set up correctly, every series has the same companion throughout, whereas different series are often devoted to different periods and have different companions. I think it would be more informative on this page to replace the "Doctor" column with the "Companion" column, where each Series will have just one entry spread over all rows stating the companion for the season. Alternatively, because K9 seems to be coming and going, the "Companion" column can differ from story to story. It depends on whether K9 is more of "Featuring" or "Companion" here. What do you think? Amorkuz ☎  21:11, January 26, 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it is a good idea to have the companion column instead, as that changes from series to series. The main debate here would be whether or not to include K9 as a companion or a feature, and I would say that he would be a feature, as since he isn't in every story, on each cover of a story he is listed in the Featuring section, with "John Leeson as K9". Since the stories label K9 as a feature, I think we should too. This would also make it consistent with the overview pages where he is listed as a feature in accordance with the covers. 0003c9fe ☎  21:49, January 26, 2018 (UTC)


 * Good point. Indeed, K9 is literally "featured" on the covers. Thus, not listing it in the "featuring" column seems just wrong, and listing it twice makes no sense. Amorkuz ☎  22:46, January 26, 2018 (UTC)