Forum:Archives of the original Panopticon

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Archives of the original Panopticon

This thread has been archived.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.

This thread is an archive of old discussions from Forum:the original Panopticon, a kind of pseudo-forum that existed during the first year of this wiki's existence. Consequently, these are all very early comments, from the first half of 2005. Many of the points raised here still echo through our current policies.

czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 14:59: Wed 05 Oct 2011 

Things to Do

(Discussion begun by Josiah Rowe 23:11, 16 Mar 2005 (EST). Archived by Freethinker1of1 18:41, 8 Apr 2005 (EST).)

Hey, Stardizzy and Freethinker! It looks like it's the three of us for the moment. I assume we'd like to get the structure of the site somewhat settled, and have a few important articles as examples before we try to get more people interested and involved (by plugging the site on Outpost Gallifrey's forum, for example). To that end, there are a few things we (as a group) should figure out:

• We should figure out what the "encyclopedia"'s point of view should be. As it is now, most of our articles take a "real-world" perspective: that is, they refer explicitly to Doctor Who stories as TV stories or novels. We should consider whether we want to keep that, or if we want articles about things in the "Doctor Who" universe to be treated as if they were written by and for someone in that universe. That is, should an article on the Master talk about Roger Delgado's untimely death in the body of the article, or should production information be separated in italics, the way they do it at Memory Alpha? (I'm not advocating either choice, but we should know what we're doing.)

• We should talk about what TARDIS Index File's canon policy is going to be. Doctor Who canon tends to be a bit more flexible than Star Trek's, since the BBC has never set out rules about what "counts" and what doesn't, the way that Paramount has about Star Trek. Therefore, I don't think that we need to be as strict as MA is about what we let in and what we keep out, but we should develop a policy about how we distinguish information from the television series, the novels, the audios, the comics, et cetera.

• We should work on the Manual of Style. We've already got conflicting usages on TV story citations in articles: should we refer to The Caves of Androzani or "The Caves of Androzani"? If we set some clear policies now it will save us a lot of time editing later. Similarly, we should figure out some article naming conventions: we've already got List of television stories and List of Audio Stories, which is inconsistent. Since Wiki links are case-sensitive, we should decide whether such articles should have capital letters or not. (Moving a page is easy, but changing everything it links to is a nuisance.)

• My project for the next week or so is to learn how to do tables in wiki formatting, so that we can develop a template for the story pages. (See Talk:Suggested Format for Television Story Entries).

• Finally, do either of you have any graphics ability? It would be great to have a TARDIS Index File logo to replace the WikiCities one in the upper left-hand corner of each page. Unfortunately, I'm not very graphically talented at all.

I think this project has great potential, and it's fun to be here building the foundation. Let's get to work! :) --Josiah Rowe 23:11, 16 Mar 2005 (EST)

Greetings Josiah and Stardizzy. Hmm, where to begin?

• The Memory Alpha method of placing production information in italics might be a good idea, especially as we are including info from or about the '96 tv movie, audio stories, and novels which sometimes conflict with continuity in the original series, which has continuity issues of its own. Right now I'm working on an entry for Nyssa, and have information about her from the series, Virgin/BBC novels, and audio stories listed in their own separate sections. The only mention of Sarah Sutton is that she played the role; I figure further info about Ms. Sutton can be given in the specific article about her. Perhaps I should finish and post the article in that form at the sandbox, and let you guys look it over and decide if that or the Memory Alpha model you mentioned would be better.

• Canon policy - Each individual Whovian seems to have his/er own opinion about what is and isn't canon. I personally lean towards being as inclusive as possible, with the individual reader given the choice of what s/he accepts as being canonical. If we adopt the Memory Alpha model of placing production background on a character or planet in italics, perhaps we should also adopt the model of putting info from the series in plain text, and info from the novels, audio stories, and other sources in italics. Whatever we decide, we should of course have a special page stating our canon policy.

• Manual of Style - yes, definitely needs work. The conflicting TV story citation usage is my fault for not editing the Wikipedia articles I forked more thoroughly. I personally think individual stories should simply be placed in quotation marks, with italics reserved for Doctor Who, as these are individual works within a vast epic anthology which crosses all media formats, much like individual chapters in a book. Plus, doing wiki markup for italics and links for the same word or set of words is actually something of a nuisance. Naming conventions should probably use capital letters only for proper names and titles, as this would make searching easier. We also need an image use policy page, before we add any more to the site.

• Graphics - I do have very limited experience with graphics, mainly with a picture editor (IrfanView) and cooltext.com. Neither, I think allows for saving as or conversion to ".png" format, which is the format used for Wiki logos. I'll check, though, and do some experimenting when I find the time.

Well, that's my input for now. What's yours, Stardizzy? --Freethinker1of1 03:22, 17 Mar 2005 (EST)

I favor separating continuity from production for two reasons. number one, so that readers can easily research only that which interests them, i.e. continuity only or production only. number two, to rein in the writers a little bit and provide some structure.

also I second the idea of italics to separate television from other continuity (or continuities). speaking of production information, I would add a little section to make note of backstory worked out by the production team and in shooting scripts, et cetera, and not nessecarily revealed on-screen, for example Ace's last name or Sarah Jane Smith's birthday, as revealed in the K-9 & COMPANY production guide.

I vote for audio stories not Audio Stories. however specific lines of books or audios with capital letters, like so... Big Finish stories or Missing Adventures. also, I like quote marks around television stories rather than the use of italics.

--Stardizzy 17:53, 17 Mar 2005 (EST)

as I do have some experience for Photoshop I will experiment with making a logo. had no idea we could change it, otherwise I would have suggested doing so.

Hello to all. I hope you don't mind me jumping in to the discussion. I have made just one contribution to this Wiki so far (the List of Audio Stories) but have been keeping an eye on progress. Time allowing, I am very keen to contribute in the future. For what they are worth, here are my thoughts on the issues raised...

• I think that this should defintely be a reference for the fictional world of Doctor Who with footnotes in italics regarding real world production details (particularly where they have a visible impact on the fictional world, eg the re-casting of Richard Hurndall as the First Doctor in "The Five Doctors"). This will make it a more useful resource for writers etc.

• I was wondering when the issue of canon would come up. The general feeling seems to be that this Wiki should be fairly relaxed about what can be included and I completely agree with this. I was quite disappointed by Memory Alpha's strict policy on not including entries from the Star Trek books etc as I don't see what the benefit is of such a ruling. As has already been said, canon in the Doctor Who world is a much looser thing and is open to personal interpretation. So, I would advocate that just about anything (be it audio, TV, novel or bubblegum card) be allowed and displayed in the same format but with the proviso that all sources of information are clearly sited. For example, an entry for Omega should say what information comes from "The Three Doctors", what comes from "Arc of Infinity" and what comes from the audio drama "Omega". With this information people can make their minds up themselves what they accept. Having said this, maybe a line does need to be drawn somewhere otherwise you could end up having masses of entries for someone's fan fiction stories featuring the Eleventh Doctor which only two people and a dog have actually read! So, might I suggest that the rule is anything that has been professionally produced or published qualifies for entry.

• Related to the previous point regarding canon, can I throw open the question of how broad the reach should be of this Wiki. Obviously it should include anything that's been broadcast or released under the heading of Doctor Who and probably "K9 and Company" as well. But should it also include the Professor Bernice Summerfield adventures and the Faction Paradox stories and other spin-off series - all of which are clearly directly related to Doctor Who? My feeling is that we should.

• I don't have any strong opinions on the style for story titles (other than we should be consistent), though I do prefer List of Audio Stories to List of television stories.

• I have some basic graphics abilities and have Photoshop. I could probably come up with a logo of some kind if nobody else with more skill and experience steps forward.

Mantrid 01:43, 18 Mar 2005 (EST)

I personally regard only the television stories as canon (won't go into my rationale for that... okay, I will... can't afford to go out and buy every single comic book, audio and book that I missed, nor, in many cases would I want to, never mind spare the time to read and listen to them), still, given this I agree that the more remote spin-offs (Faction Paradox, etc.) belong. I would, if more time and inclinatin, go and add the BBV, the Benny Big Finish and Magic Bullet audios to the audio stories had I the time and inclination.

Stardizzy--Stardizzy 08:26, 18 Mar 2005 (EST)

Mantrid, glad to see you're still with us. Your contributions and input are greatly appreciated. I think you summed up what our canon policy should be rather nicely, - perfectly, in fact.

Guys, one other thing that occured to me. As to conventions, what should our policy on spelling and phraseology be? Using American ones might alienate members from the UK and other countries where the Queen's English is standard, but I doubt few American members would know all the conventions of spelling ("colour" instead of "color") and terminology ("mobile" instead of "cell phone") used in the UK. Perhaps a policy where contributors use whatever conventions they are most familiar and comfortable with, while members from the UK, Australia, etc. reserve the right to edit entries to conform to standards of British English if they choose? I'm sure the English version of Wikipedia has dealt with this issue, and will try to research how they resolved it either on the site or in their forum archives.

Also, to help organize our efforts better, I'm thinking of putting together a "Things to Do" special page, listing the tasks that need to be performed to get this site running smoothly and looking good.

--Freethinker1of1 18:12, 19 Mar 2005 (EST)

---

Hi, I havent posted any articles on here yet but thought that I would put my suggestions forward first. I tried a project similar to this a while ago called the Braxiatel Collection but I eventually gave up because it prooved difficult to find people willing to help and it was taking me much longer to sort out the page formatting than to write the entries. A group project like this should be much easier.

• I believe that the best way to handle a project like this is to approach it from a fictional perspective. I dont know if anyone has read the first Faction Paradox novel The Book of the War but I like the approach taken in that book to writing an A-Z. Any real world details needed could be included in a separate section or ideally on a separate page with a link in the main article.

• On the issue of Cannon I agree that the best policy is to keep it as wide as possible (but sticking to the officially produced material and not allowing articles to drift to peoples online fan fiction or fanzine material). Personally I think the best approach is to reference television stories in ordinary text and other material in Italics and after any reference to a character, planet etc have the story name referred to after for example... Skaro was eventually destroyed by the Hand of Omega {Remembrance of the Daleks}. However it was later discovered that the planet was not actually destroyed at all {War of the Daleks} Ok so that could be worded better but you get the general idea.

• In relation to how far to expand it to spin offs I believe that we should take a quite liberal attitude. I would include the Bernice Summerfield books and audio, Faction Paradox, Time Hunter, Kaldor City etc. However i would exclude the BBV productions which used Doctor Who situations but werent really connected to the show such as the Time Traveller CD's. I have put a proposal for what I consider to be cannon on the Canon policy.

• I agree there should be a common format and that it should be decided as soon as possible but I dont really have an opinion either way on how to write the TV story titles, etc

• I would agree with Mantrid though I prefer the appearance of the List of Audio Stories to List of television stories.

• I have no ability to do graphics at all. I have a really nice logo on my site but that is the only thing which wasnt my own work so...

• On the last point relating to terminology I really dont think it is that important an issue, the minor differences between UK and US English for example can just be ignored, personally I dont even notice the differences when I am reading.

• Well there are quite a few of my thoughts, I will have to start looking at putting some actual content on here instead of just talking about it

--Amxitsa 16:07, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)

---

Ok I have been having another rethink, what about the following model used on the Official Star Wars Website. They have split their database entries into 3 sections. The Movies, The Expanded Universe and Behind the Scenes. See this article on Anakin for an example of this.

What if we used a similar system on here. So for example an article on the Master would be as follows:

Main Article - Written from a fictional perspective recording the Masters exploits on TV, in the Novels and Audio CD's, etc.

Dividing Line at bottom of page - Written from a fictional perspective recording the Masters exploits in less cannonicial material, e.g. Scream of Shalka, Comics, etc

A link on the main page to a seperate entry entitled The Master (In Reality) or something like that which would link to a page on casting info and the development of the role.

Following this approach should mean that people can choose for themselves whether they want a purely fictional work, a purely factual work or a combination of the two. Well it is the best compromise i can think of and hopefully it will satisfy everyone

--Amxitsa 05:26, 23 Mar 2005 (EST)

I like the idea of having a main article written from a "Whoniverse" perspective, with a second section or sub-section titled something like "Other stories" which could cover items from the less canonical works. In both cases, parenthetical citation of the specific stories being used as sources, with links, should be used. However, rather than create a separate article entitled "Character (In Reality)," it should be enough to place behind-the-scenes, continuity/discontinuity notes, and other "real world" items in italics, as Memory Alpha does. A table such as the one Josiah Rowe has been working on could be used to list the actor(s) who have played the role, with a link to the article about him/her/them. Here's an example of how Memory Alpha does it.

I think we also need to look more into categorizing articles for easier navigation and disambiguation between subjects which have the same or similar names, i.e. "Castrovalva" the tv story vs. "Castrovalva" the actual city in the tv story. Categories can be created to help separate real world articles, i.e. behind-the-scenes articles, articles on individual stories, and bios on actors, writers, and production crewmembers, from those dealing with characters, alien races, planets, and so on. Wikipedia has a page which discusses the creation and use of categories to aid visitors in navigating the site and in disambiguation. It can be found here.--Freethinker1of1 07:27, 23 Mar 2005 (EST)

Right. We seem to have a consensus on putting main article text in a Doctor Who universe POV when possible: this means that articles such as The Doctor need to be rewritten from their Wikipedia roots. (E.g., the first sentence of The Doctor has to go, and the information about the actors who played him needs to be put in italics, et cetera.)

I applaud Amxitsa and others for making such a good start on the canon discussion at Tardis talk:Canon policy. We should try to keep the canon discussions focused there, rather than spread out on this page. Similarly, I'll try to summarize what we've said so far about questions of style at Tardis talk:Manual of Style. (It's my own fault for starting the "Things to Do" section so haphazardly: it'd be clearer if I'd made separate sections for each topic!)

Also, I'd appreciate any feedback on the table I've developed at Talk:Suggested Format for Television Story Entries. And I'm sorry it took so long for me to get back here — last week was crazy IRL. --Josiah Rowe 01:16, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)

Wiki Project Logo

(Discussion begun by Freethinker1of1 18:40, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT). Archived by Freethinker1of1 13:18, 4 Oct 2005 (EST).)

Khaosworks has created two possible logos for the project. (I created one earlier, but am withdrawing it from consideration.)

Click on the thumbs to view the full-size versions. I will also be uploading versions resized to fit the 135-150 pix wide size for wiki logos, with links on the full-size version pages, to give a better idea of what these would look like if used. I invite everyone to give their feedback and vote on which version they would most like to see used. Thanks. --Freethinker1of1 18:40, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I prefer the bottom one --Amxitsa 15:21, 14 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Ack! Since no one had said anything about which logo they wanted, I went ahead and uploaded the top one, after adjusting the size and the colors. Ah well, I'll just leave it up for now until a third or fourth party gives their vote. If they want the bottom one, I'll change it. --Freethinker1of1 16:23, 14 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Sorry i was just on this page to post the question above and saw this, I didnt realise you had already made a decision.

No problem. As I said, I'll gladly change it if any more members voice a preference for something else. Remember, almost nothing on a wiki is permanent. (And I wasn't annoyed or offended either, just being facetious.) ;) --Freethinker1of1 16:38, 14 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Can I be honest here and say that the present logo for this Wiki really annoys me. Not so much for its design but for its shape. It juts out over the edge of the main content page. Wikia actually states that the logos must be 135 pixels by 155 pixels, which makes them fit the box perfectly. So, I've gone ahead and created a new logo (above) to these dimensions. I used the older logo because it lends itself more to the dimensions than the new one. Also, I think that this logo is more representative of the whole of Doctor Who rather than just the new series. I don't have the access rights to be able to upload the logo but it's not just up to me if we use it. I'll leave that for you all to decide. Thanks! --Mantrid 08:31, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I like it, and agree that it would look better and make the wiki look less biased towards the new series (or just the television stories). Anyone else?

--Freethinker1of1 15:18, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I like this logo much more than the old one. It's got my vote.

--GingerM 16:23, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Cast

(Discussion begun by GingerM 16:07, 18 Jun 2005 (EDT). Archived by GingerM 15:35, 26 Oct 2005 (EST).)

Does the cast section have to be directly from the serial or can it be added to, e.g. is the cast section full names or common names e.g. Jo Grant or Josephine 'Jo' Grant and if people aren't credited on the serial are they on our cast list? --GingerM 16:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you can verify that someone had an uncredited role in a story, by all means please list them (IMDB has a list of Doctor Who guest appearances for the original series which can be found here the current series which can be found here, and which include uncredited performers.) As for full versus common names, I think most people would know the Third Doctor's second companion as simply "Jo Grant." If a page already exists for someone that uses their full name and you list them under their common one, making a redirect page might be easier than moving page content. (I'll try to post a "how to" on redirects when I have time.)

One last thing I'd like to add is that for characters that were known in the story only by a common first name, i.e. "John" or "Marsha," or a common title or function, i.e. "Guard" or "Commander," I've been creating links and pages which include the title of the story they appear in in parantheses to prevent confusing them with characters with the same names or functions in other stories, - for example, "John (Another Dalek Story)" and "John (Yet Another Dalek Story)."

--Freethinker1of1 11:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about people named in novelisations but not in serials e.g. a guard is called Rogers in the book but credited in the serial as 'Guard'?--GingerM 14:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. It would depend, I think, on whether the person was actually called "Roger" in the course of the original television story, even though the character was listed as "Guard" in the credits. Fans might remember the person by name, rather than "the guard in such and such story." But since most people won't remember the character's name, and to prevent confusion, it might be better to use the title and mention the specific name, if known, in the actual article. We pretty much decided early on with the project that the novelizations would pretty much not be used as source material, since the authors sometimes took liberties and put things, events, and characters in the novels that were not in the original televised stories. --Freethinker1of1 12:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Extended Cast

(discussion begun by Amxitsa 21:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC). Archived by GingerM 17:44, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC),)

What do people think of the following page An Unearthly Child Uncredited Cast, if you look back at the history of An Unearthly Child you will notice that the cast list was getting really long. I think it is better to have the main cast on the story page and then the uncredited cast on a different page. It makes the story page a little simpler to read and to be honest there are going to be fewer people who are interested in uncredited cast. I think it is important to include them for the sake of making this project as comprehensive as possible but on the main page I think they only make it more cluttered than it needs to be. What does anyone else think? Amxitsa 21:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, for exactly the reasons you stated. Oh, and my apologies for not being as involved with the project the last few days. My current work schedule is taking much of my time. I'll be continuing work on pages for years, decades, and centuries when I can. Have also downloaded the Wikipedia article on the Daleks and will be editing and adapting it to fit the format and WHOniverse perspective for this wiki.

--Freethinker1of1 09:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should that be used on all serials with uncredited cast or just ones with a lot of uncredited cast?--GingerM 14:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation

(discussion begun by GingerM 16:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC). Archived by GingerM 17:48, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC).)

Should Frontier In Space be moved to Frontier in Space because I moved The Wheel In Space to The Wheel in Space but now that 'in' is capitalised again I think it might be a deliberate title?--GingerM 16:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've actually had trouble remembering myself what the proper conventions are, but judging from how the stories are listed on other sites, it looks like "of," "in," "a," and "the" should be lower case in the titles, - except , of course, when they're the first word in the title, - while "from" should be capitalized. So the pages should be moved to ones with the proper capitalization, with redirect pages for those who have as much trouble remembering this convention as we do :)

--Freethinker1of1 11:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So what about The Creature from the Pit, that has no capitalisation and in wikipedia articles 'from' isn't capitalised so I think that from shouldn't be capitalized, so if you agree I will move the pages.--GingerM 16:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if Wikipedia isn't capitalizing "from" then I can guess we will go with lower-case. --Freethinker1of1 20:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Transcripts

(discussion started by Amxista 11:11,19 Jun 2005 (UTC). Archived by GingerM 17:31, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC).) I have put links to transcripts on each of the story pages, but i was just wondering what the copyright position is before i actually upload one onto An Unearthly Child page. I know they are freely available on the internet but are we allowed to upload them on to here? I would personally have said yes, but i just wanted to know what everyone else thinks before actually doing it. Amxitsa 11:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you mean copying and uploading a transcript from someone else's site, I would certainly contact the owner of the site and get their permission, regardless of whether the content is formally copyrighted, as a matter of courtesy. If these are official BBC transcripts, they may very well be copyrighted. Keep in mind that just because something is on the internet does not automatically make it public domain. If it's your own synopsis of the story, I see no problem. --Freethinker1of1 17:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)