Talk:Doctor Thorne (TV series)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doctor Thorne (TV series) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Television: British Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

4 episodes[edit]

Doesn't this have 4 episodes not 3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:ED06:3E00:AD59:80F:7585:F36D (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about all network broadcasts but it was originally produced and aired as 3. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia the ABC aired it in 3 episodes Bjenks (talk)

No, these episodes are correct for the videos here. Someone just needs to add the fourth. MikeR613 (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation number problem[edit]

In cleaning up the table of episodes, I found that the citation number wasn't showing up in column 6, and this couldn't be remedied by placing it elsewhere in the table. I could get a result only by using Template:Sup, which of course needs to be re-edited whenever an earlier citation is inserted into the article. I hope someone with the necessary skills can rectify this anomaly.

Incidentally, I also feel that this table is unnecessarily cumbersome and repetitive (e.g., thrice reiterating the names of writer and novelist, which have been stated in the lede and/or infobox). Moreover, the 'Viewers' column (despite its purported citation) does not provide any information—and I was unable to find any via the ref link. Anyway, do weekly viewer ratings for a single network have any encyclopedic value? I would say not. I was also infuriated by the infobox listing of the entire cast under "Starring", including redlinked actors—but I'm not a movie buff and will leave such issues to others. Bjenks (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The citation number is there and is clickable but it's blue text on blue background so it's hard to see. I don't know whether you can change the color of the number but you can change the background color away from a nearly identical blue. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, PrimeHunter. Bjenks, I think Help:Reference display customization may help with that, thought I haven't looked in detail. --ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]