Bots, emailconfirmed, Administrators
34,286
edits
More actions
m
Updating links from Season 8 to Season 8 (Doctor Who 1963)
m (Updating links from Season 8 to Season 8 (Doctor Who 1963)) |
|||
| (30 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{archive|Panopticon archives}}[[category:policy changers]] | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
'''Create a New Page for Major Error''' | '''Create a New Page for Major Error''' | ||
*[[User:Delton Menace|Delton Menace]] 21:30, March 20, 2010 (UTC) (alternate vote) | *[[User:Delton Menace|Delton Menace]] 21:30, March 20, 2010 (UTC) (alternate vote) | ||
*[[User:BlueDalek|BlueDalek]] 12:55, June 19, 2010 (UTC) | |||
===New pages for discontinuities?=== | ===New pages for discontinuities?=== | ||
| Line 56: | Line 57: | ||
I agree, it looks much, '''much''' cleaner as production errors. [[User:Delton Menace|Delton Menace]] 00:10, March 25, 2010 (UTC) | I agree, it looks much, '''much''' cleaner as production errors. [[User:Delton Menace|Delton Menace]] 00:10, March 25, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Alrighty, I've changed the [[Tardis:Format for Television Story Entries]] guide from Discontinuity to Production errors and re-written the information for it. Any discussion about discontinuity of the story can take place in [[ | ::Alrighty, I've changed the [[Tardis:Format for Television Story Entries]] guide from Discontinuity to Production errors and re-written the information for it. Any discussion about discontinuity of the story can take place in [[Howling:The Howling]] (as noted on the Format for TV stories page) as the article's talk page should be used to discuss the editing of the article rather than debate about elements of the story. I've begun working through the stories editing out the discontinuity starting with ''[[An Unearthly Child]]''. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 07:48, March 25, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::Yeah, much cleaner, but still I think people aren't necessarily going to read the MOS to know that production errors '''don't''' include continuity (canon) errors. It is a "(pre-)production error", for instance, that the Doctor was conceptualized as a human named Dr. Who in the films; or that ''Genesis of the Daleks'' appears to conceptualize Daleks in a very different way to ''The Daleks''; or that the mixture of human and Time Lord DNA is seen as problematic in "Journey's End", but not in the TVM. But none of that is really what we're talking about. I don't think the average user would see the heading "Recording errors" and think to put stuff like that there. Besides which, there is the messy issue of the fact that on modern DW there's a '''very''' clear line between production, pre-production, and post-production. A "production error" is technically '''only''' something that occurs in principal photography and pick-ups. Your earlier editing example is not a production error, but a post-production one. Likewise, the massive errors in ''The Waters of Mars'' screen graphics are post-production errors. I still think recording error works, because it's immediately apparent we're NOT talking about the script, and because ultimately the final cut is recorded onto a master. Which means the sum total of all behind-the-scenes errors is ultimately a recording error. These things wouldn't be errors if that final record button didn't commit them to the master. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 15:48, March 25, 2010 (UTC) | :::Yeah, much cleaner, but still I think people aren't necessarily going to read the MOS to know that production errors '''don't''' include continuity (canon) errors. It is a "(pre-)production error", for instance, that the Doctor was conceptualized as a human named Dr. Who in the films; or that ''Genesis of the Daleks'' appears to conceptualize Daleks in a very different way to ''The Daleks''; or that the mixture of human and Time Lord DNA is seen as problematic in "Journey's End", but not in the TVM. But none of that is really what we're talking about. I don't think the average user would see the heading "Recording errors" and think to put stuff like that there. Besides which, there is the messy issue of the fact that on modern DW there's a '''very''' clear line between production, pre-production, and post-production. A "production error" is technically '''only''' something that occurs in principal photography and pick-ups. Your earlier editing example is not a production error, but a post-production one. Likewise, the massive errors in ''The Waters of Mars'' screen graphics are post-production errors. I still think recording error works, because it's immediately apparent we're NOT talking about the script, and because ultimately the final cut is recorded onto a master. Which means the sum total of all behind-the-scenes errors is ultimately a recording error. These things wouldn't be errors if that final record button didn't commit them to the master. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 15:48, March 25, 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Line 69: | Line 70: | ||
:::::I'm sure I was reading one of the articles you've been editing that there weren't any 'lighting directors' back in the day?. The italic explanation I must have left by accident. As for the error itself, yes now that I read it again it isn't an error, when I left it in I was thinking of backdrops and shadows falling on them, but now remember the shot in question and it's not an error (I shall fall back on the; 'it is the very nature of a wiki that things will be edited multiple times before they're correct and everyone makes mistakes'). --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:25, March 25, 2010 (UTC) | :::::I'm sure I was reading one of the articles you've been editing that there weren't any 'lighting directors' back in the day?. The italic explanation I must have left by accident. As for the error itself, yes now that I read it again it isn't an error, when I left it in I was thinking of backdrops and shadows falling on them, but now remember the shot in question and it's not an error (I shall fall back on the; 'it is the very nature of a wiki that things will be edited multiple times before they're correct and everyone makes mistakes'). --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:25, March 25, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::::::Almost. | :::::::Almost. There were no [[cinematographer]]s back in the day. There ''were'' lighting directors, though they didn't begin to be credited until [[Season 8 (Doctor Who 1963)|Season 8]], and you would still find occasional stories that didn't credit people, particularly in the McCoy era. 22:04, March 26, 2010 (UTC) | ||
==STOP!== | ==STOP!== | ||
Stop! What are you doing? I agree some pages may need a tidy up but you’re destroying many people’s hard work. All you have done is destroy and delete dozens of unanswered questions, and given it a stupid new name leaving the bear minimum, I most want to complain as I am the one who add loads to the ones that had little and now your destroying all my work, stop and undo, you don't the right. After all if people are going to add to it wanting there questions answered and they aren't stupid or obvious who said you can delete them? And I've looked over your deletions and found you have deleted many reasonable unanswered errors and reasonable answers, and before you argue why to keep answered questions, how else do you stop new comers adding the same question? Just stop, and preferably undo and leave your meddling to yourself. If people wanted them gone, they would have been got rid of by now so your reason seems bit rubbish, as is this page and your ideas, just undo you’re meddling and leave. And before you ague be prepared to know that I will fight you till you back off. | Stop! What are you doing? I agree some pages may need a tidy up but you’re destroying many people’s hard work. All you have done is destroy and delete dozens of unanswered questions, and given it a stupid new name leaving the bear minimum, I most want to complain as I am the one who add loads to the ones that had little and now your destroying all my work, stop and undo, you don't the right. After all if people are going to add to it wanting there questions answered and they aren't stupid or obvious who said you can delete them? And I've looked over your deletions and found you have deleted many reasonable unanswered errors and reasonable answers, and before you argue why to keep answered questions, how else do you stop new comers adding the same question? Just stop, and preferably undo and leave your meddling to yourself. If people wanted them gone, they would have been got rid of by now so your reason seems bit rubbish, as is this page and your ideas, just undo you’re meddling and leave. And before you ague be prepared to know that I will fight you till you back off. | ||
| Line 76: | Line 77: | ||
::You have (unsigned user) answered your own question. They were unanswered questions. Which aren't production errors. They aren't even discontinuity. | ::You have (unsigned user) answered your own question. They were unanswered questions. Which aren't production errors. They aren't even discontinuity. | ||
::It is the very nature of a wiki that it grows, develops information and edits down the slack. This is an encyclopaedia, it's about bringing forth information. We're seeking to distill the information that was there into usable information. The question response format wasn't providing any information in the encyclopaedic sense. | ::It is the very nature of a wiki that it grows, develops information and edits down the slack. This is an encyclopaedia, it's about bringing forth information. We're seeking to distill the information that was there into usable information. The question response format wasn't providing any information in the encyclopaedic sense. | ||
::[[ | ::[[Howling:The Howling]] is the place for people to ask and answer questions relating to continuity and plot holes (it's the reason it was created in fact). --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 01:57, March 26, 2010 (UTC) | ||
No I'm not willing to except that, we can't have forms and discussion pages for all the errors, it would over crowd the site and it would really just be a waste of space, as there is no need for that many, and they are errors, to return to my original statement if people are going to go to the trouble of adding them then what gives you the right to delete them? And besides that doesn't ocount for the fact you have deleted the answers and made the proplems unanswered. And as I said you will see I am prepared for this, and my action starts now, if you want to talk about this, so we can come to a reasonable agreement then say, I am a reasonable person, so if you want to talk then say, but untill then, well your see... | No I'm not willing to except that, we can't have forms and discussion pages for all the errors, it would over crowd the site and it would really just be a waste of space, as there is no need for that many, and they are errors, to return to my original statement if people are going to go to the trouble of adding them then what gives you the right to delete them? And besides that doesn't ocount for the fact you have deleted the answers and made the proplems unanswered. And as I said you will see I am prepared for this, and my action starts now, if you want to talk about this, so we can come to a reasonable agreement then say, I am a reasonable person, so if you want to talk then say, but untill then, well your see... | ||
:::If you are a 'reasonable person' then you can accept that this change from Discontinuity section to Production Errors is what the admins have decided to do. Mini-mitch 15:52, March 26, 2010 (UTC) | :::If you are a 'reasonable person' then you can accept that this change from Discontinuity section to Production Errors is what the admins have decided to do. Mini-mitch 15:52, March 26, 2010 (UTC) | ||
I don't see this as reasoning, I see it as failure, I spent ages making many of the Discontiuity sections and now that you are destroying them because you think there messy, and you expect me to be okay with that? I won't give up, but as I said before, to save all of us a lot of strain can we just talk about this rather than us having to keep undoing each others undos? | I don't see this as reasoning, I see it as failure, I spent ages making many of the Discontiuity sections and now that you are destroying them because you think there messy, and you expect me to be okay with that? I won't give up, but as I said before, to save all of us a lot of strain can we just talk about this rather than us having to keep undoing each others undos? | ||
::::"It would crowd the site and would really be a waste of space"...this is what other users have been saying about the 'discontinuity and question/answer element' and what lead us to clearing it up to Production errors. | ::::"It would crowd the site and would really be a waste of space"...this is what other users have been saying about the 'discontinuity and question/answer element' and what lead us to clearing it up to Production errors. | ||
::::People also go to the trouble of adding unsourced rumours which are deleted and at one point in this wiki's development they were left on the pages, unsourced. However as this wiki has developed we now state that any rumours cited must have sources. As I've said it's in the nature of a wiki to change and develop. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:01, March 26, 2010 (UTC) | ::::People also go to the trouble of adding unsourced rumours which are deleted and at one point in this wiki's development they were left on the pages, unsourced. However as this wiki has developed we now state that any rumours cited must have sources. As I've said it's in the nature of a wiki to change and develop. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:01, March 26, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::::The problems that are left are errors in production, any issues were issues with story or in some cases not even that. Whilst editing The Moonbase I came across something about Ben knowing about thermonuclear science and other things, far from being discontinuity it's more an interesting character development. Other things like this can be over anaylsed as being a plot hole/error are actually elements of the Doctor Who universe. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:12, March 26, 2010 (UTC) | ::::The problems that are left are errors in production, any issues were issues with story or in some cases not even that. Whilst editing The Moonbase I came across something about Ben knowing about thermonuclear science and other things, far from being discontinuity it's more an interesting character development. Other things like this can be over anaylsed as being a plot hole/error are actually elements of the Doctor Who universe. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:12, March 26, 2010 (UTC) | ||
==Vote 2== | ==Vote 2== | ||
(Please sign user name and place a reason why)<br> | (Please sign user name and place a reason why)<br /> | ||
'''Keep Production Errors, move discontinuity | '''Keep Production Errors, move discontinuity to NEW PAGE''' | ||
'''Keep Production Errors, move Discontinuity to NEW SECTION IN FORUM''' | '''Keep Production Errors, move Discontinuity to NEW SECTION IN FORUM''' | ||
*[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:44, March 26, 2010 (UTC) As we've already discussed the plot holes/discontinuity is basically just a discussion. So [[ | *[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:44, March 26, 2010 (UTC) As we've already discussed the plot holes/discontinuity is basically just a discussion. So [[Howling:The Howling]] would be a perfect place for it. (As is already stated in [[Tardis:Format for Television Story Entries#Production errors]]. Having a page for discontinuity is what The Howling was created for, it's a forum for people to discuss the continuity. | ||
*'''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' | *'''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 22:01, March 26, 2010 (UTC) I've already talked at length about why. Not quite sure why we're having a ''second'' vote. Asked and answered, as far as I can see. Still, see also newer arguments at [[Talk:Discontinuty, plot holes and other errors]]. Brief recap of arguments: we already have a place set up for this stuff. It's called [[Howling:The Howling]]. Perhaps others could clarify why they're so desperate to have this kind of information go in the main article space? | ||
*[[User:Mini-mitch|Mini-mitch]] 16:24, March 26 2010, (UTC) | *[[User:Mini-mitch|Mini-mitch]] 16:24, March 26 2010, (UTC) | ||
**After reader your thoughts and opinions, I now understand that it will be easier to move into '''The Howling''', and now create a new page | **After reader your thoughts and opinions, I now understand that it will be easier to move into '''The Howling''', and now create a new page | ||
'''Keep Discontinuity Section, move Production Errors to NEW PAGE''' | '''Keep Discontinuity Section, move Production Errors to NEW PAGE''' | ||
| Line 100: | Line 101: | ||
==General Points== | ==General Points== | ||
Would it not be easier, to create a new section in the Forums, for all this! '''Not''' The Howling, but create '''New''' section for all? And the Production Errors stay on the page? Mini-mitch 21:58, March 26, 2010 (UTC) | Would it not be easier, to create a new section in the Forums, for all this! '''Not''' The Howling, but create '''New''' section for all? And the Production Errors stay on the page? Mini-mitch 21:58, March 26, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:I imagine it's fairly easy to create a new forum, sure. | :I imagine it's fairly easy to create a new forum, sure. But my question would be, why is it necessary? What's wrong with The Howling? When I read the description of The Howling, it matches exactly what I think all this discon stuff is. Do you somehow think this stuff is "too good" for The Howling? '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 22:10, March 26, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::I don'y think the stuff is too good for the Howling. Can we please decide what happening and end this debate? Mini-mitch 22:14, March 26, 2010 (UTC) | :::I don'y think the stuff is too good for the Howling. Can we please decide what happening and end this debate? Mini-mitch 22:14, March 26, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::::Okay, but that would be helped by an explanation of why you don't want it on The Howling. | ::::Okay, but that would be helped by an explanation of why you don't want it on The Howling. What's confusing me, and I daresay [[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] is that The Howling is: | ||
:::::"a forum where all contributors to this wiki can solve problems and create fixes for continuity holes, speculate, discuss trivia, and offer up theories on continuity and other points of trivia" | :::::"a forum where all contributors to this wiki can solve problems and create fixes for continuity holes, speculate, discuss trivia, and offer up theories on continuity and other points of trivia" | ||
::::How is that '''not''' the place to put discontinuity information? | ::::How is that '''not''' the place to put discontinuity information? | ||
::::Hmm, thinking about this more before you respond . . . Is what you want a nice, orderly article that neatly puts all the stories in order, then branches out to a bit for each story? | ::::Hmm, thinking about this more before you respond . . . Is what you want a nice, orderly article that neatly puts all the stories in order, then branches out to a bit for each story? If that's the case, it could easily be achieved without leaving the howling. What you do is just create a single forum page with 220 subpages (or however many stories there are). The subpages could be easily called up (but only from that page) by use of the following syntax: | ||
<pre> | <pre> | ||
[[/An Unearthly Child]] | [[/An Unearthly Child]] | ||
| Line 114: | Line 115: | ||
etc. | etc. | ||
</pre> | </pre> | ||
:::This syntax is a shortcut for typing some big long thing out. | :::This syntax is a shortcut for typing some big long thing out. So if the main page were [[Howling:The Howling:Doctor Who Discontinuity by episode]], then [[/An Uunearthly Child]] would stand in for [[Howling:The Howling:Doctor Who Discontinuity by episode/An Unearthly Child]]. | ||
::::I can see why you might want to have it centralized, but it can definitely be centralized on The Howling. | ::::I can see why you might want to have it centralized, but it can definitely be centralized on The Howling. The Fora are just a different namespace, or ''folder'', on the wiki. They're not a barren wasteland where the rules of wiki coding fail to apply. You have precisely the same abilities in The Howling as you do elsewhere. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 22:26, March 26, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::::Alrighty, taking CzechOut's idea I'd created a proof of concept/beginning of the pages. | :::::Alrighty, taking CzechOut's idea I'd created a proof of concept/beginning of the pages. | ||
:::::[[ | :::::[[Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes]] I've just created links for the first two seasons and created [[Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/An Unearthly Child]] with all its discontinuity intact from the original page. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 04:23, March 27, 2010 (UTC) | ||
==Putting the decision to work== | ==Putting the decision to work== | ||
One thing I've noted in the process of changing over these pages is that there's no obvious sign of where to have discon discussions on the story page. | One thing I've noted in the process of changing over these pages is that there's no obvious sign of where to have discon discussions on the story page. Accordingly, I've changed [[:Template:discontinuity]] to work in both directions. It points to the relevant discon discussion if you put it on a story page, and it points to the relevant story page if you're on a discon page. This might cut down on new discon notes creeping back into production error sections. See [[:Template:Discontinuity/doc]] for more info. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 21:12, April 25, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::This has now been put on every story page (at least as far as I can tell, without manually checking all 210+ pages), so you shouldn't need to any work. | ::This has now been put on every story page (at least as far as I can tell, without manually checking all 210+ pages), so you shouldn't need to any work. Might change the wording of the note to make it slightly less verbose. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 00:40, April 26, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::I think it should be verbose for now, since it's new, but with the plan to edit it down a bit once people are more familiar with it. Something along the lines of "For a discussion of the narrative discontinuity, click here. You could win an iPod!" | ::I think it should be verbose for now, since it's new, but with the plan to edit it down a bit once people are more familiar with it. Something along the lines of "For a discussion of the narrative discontinuity, click here. You could win an iPod!" | ||
| Line 128: | Line 129: | ||
::A related question: would it be appropriate for us at this stage to be moving things ''back'' into "Production Errors" that seem better there? I was just glancing at [[The Tomb of the Cybermen]] and noticed a number of entries actually are production errors, like the film being run backwards and such. [[User:Monkey with a Gun|Monkey with a Gun]] 01:26, May 2, 2010 (UTC) | ::A related question: would it be appropriate for us at this stage to be moving things ''back'' into "Production Errors" that seem better there? I was just glancing at [[The Tomb of the Cybermen]] and noticed a number of entries actually are production errors, like the film being run backwards and such. [[User:Monkey with a Gun|Monkey with a Gun]] 01:26, May 2, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::If it's absolutely, positively, '''crystal''' clear that a thing in the discon forum has been placed there by mistake, yeah you can move it back. But it should be fairly '''completely''' unambiguous, like the example you've noted. And you should make sure you've left behind a good edit summary that explains your rationale for re=placement in the article proper. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 08:54, May 4, 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Slight update== | ==Slight update== | ||
| Line 140: | Line 142: | ||
:As for the formatting, personally, I find the indentation easier. But maybe that's because now it looks like what I expect a discussion on a wiki (e.g., on a talk page or a forum thread) to look like.... | :As for the formatting, personally, I find the indentation easier. But maybe that's because now it looks like what I expect a discussion on a wiki (e.g., on a talk page or a forum thread) to look like.... | ||
::This last paragraph above is bang-on. | ::This last paragraph above is bang-on. That was entirely the intent. To make it very like a standard wiki discussion page cause . . . that's what it is. I've got to strongly disagree with [[User:Monkey with a Gun|Monkey with a Gun]]'s second point. It was ''not'' easily readable when you got to heavily contended points. Take for example the "Half-human argument" at [[Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/Doctor Who (1996)|Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/Doctor Who]]. That was originally one ''very'' long paragraph with italics followed by (parentheticals} followed by non-italics in a six-times-over loop. It was extremely difficult to follow. Now it's one neatly descended set of indentations, making it very obvious where each point ends and the next begins. It's fine, I suppose, if there's one point and one counter point to use italics, but when you get to three arguments about the same point, you really ''have'' to go to either indentation or a table to make it parse correctly. | ||
::As for Monkey's other point, individual episode pages spinning out from serial pages are certainly possible, and perhaps even necessary, for some of the longer serials. It'd of course be quite easy to do something like [[ | ::As for Monkey's other point, individual episode pages spinning out from serial pages are certainly possible, and perhaps even necessary, for some of the longer serials. It'd of course be quite easy to do something like [[Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/An Unearthly Child/An Unearthly Child]] if you wanted to have a separate page for just episode 1. Thing is, though, having done all of the 1980s serials, I didn't find a single one that had enough notes to justify separate pages. So I wouldn't support a ''universal'' switch-over to episodic subpages, but might be persuaded that ''[[The War Games]]'', ''[[The Daleks' Master Plan]]'', and maybe a few select others might be able to carry separated episode discussions. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 08:45, May 4, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::I was thinking, rather than subbing the subpage, we could just include some sub-headings on the page like; 'Over all story discontinuity' and then 'Individuals Part/Episode continuity'. That way all the story continuity is contained on one page. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 12:22, May 4, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::That's a great idea; it gets the best of both worlds. Since there would be a heading for each episode, you could even link to a specific episode if you needed to (e.g., if some specific detail in one episode contradicts something in another episode and you want to reference the earlier in the later). --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 15:53, May 4, 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Signing== | |||
In the discontinuity pages, should people be signing their answers?<br /> | |||
It seems to me that it just makes it look untidy [[User:Lord Aro|Lord Aro]] 12:51, May 19, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I don't think they should, the discontinuity pages are there for information, so while it is opinion in there it's more like informed opinion than personal opinion (which is what goes on in the rest of the Forum). --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:44, May 19, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Should i tidy them up if i can be bothered then? Perhaps someone could also modify the <nowiki>{{Discontinuity}}</nowiki> template --[[User:Lord Aro|Lord Aro]] 12:40, May 20, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::I'd disagree with [[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]]. They're ''completely'' forum pages. They are ''totally'' personal opinion. They aren't any more informed than anything that goes on at Gallifrey Base. I have no problem with signatures; the only reason they aren't there now is that it would have been unnecessarily difficult to have tracked down who said what when the points were on the mainspace article pages. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 20:40, June 17, 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Formatting== | |||
I'd like to suggest an alteration to the formatting of the discontinuity pages. Presently, the formatting is as such: | |||
* This is point one. | |||
::This is a counter-argument to point one. | |||
:::This is a counter-argument to the counter-argument above | |||
* This is point two. | |||
::Well, no, I disagree with that. | |||
:::Really? I think that first point makes good sense. | |||
... and so on. | |||
However, on some pages such as the [[Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/Cold Blood|Cold Blood page]], it can get really confusing as to where one point ends and another begins. I'd like to suggest that we also add in bullet points for the counter arguments as well, as they let you see exactly where each counter argument begins. Just as such: | |||
*This is point one. | |||
**This is a counter-argument to point one. | |||
***This is a counter-argument to the counter-argument above | |||
*This is point two. | |||
**Well, no, I disagree with that. | |||
***Really? I think that first point makes good sense. | |||
What do you guys think? --[[User:The Thirteenth Doctor|The Thirteenth Doctor]] 08:02, June 1, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::On the Cold Blood page it seems to be an issue with people failing to indent enough. | |||
::Having bullet points for each point of discussion helps to keep track of which point of contention is being discussed. If every counter-argument had a bullet point the discussion would get somewhat out of control as every bullet point would signify that comment as a 'main' discontinuity element rather than an discussion about it. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 09:32, June 1, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::I try to go through and fix things up when people indent incorrectly (or add bullets where they shouldn't, or insert colons later in the comment apparently trying to follow the instructions without understanding how wikicode works), but refrigamator messy, so so messy. Almost nobody is getting this right. | |||
:::I blame the RTE. (I don't suppose it's possible to disable the RTE only on the Forum namespace and leave it available elsewhere? On second thought, don't answer that; it just opens up an irrelevant argument....) | |||
:::But either way, I don't think bullet points would help solve the problem, at all. And, as Tangerineduel points out, it would take away the useful separation that we get from the bullets today. So, small harm for zero gain? I'd vote no. --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 09:58, June 1, 2010 (UTC) | |||
: This is a counter-argument to point one | |||
: this is another counter-argument to point one | |||
: this is a third counter-argument to point one | |||
:: this is a counter argument to the third counter-argument | |||
: This is a counter-argument to point two | |||
: this is another counter-argument to point two | |||
: this is a third counter-argument to point two | |||
: This is the present format. On the pages it is difficult to tell where one counter argument to the first point ends and another begins. | |||
::*This is point one | |||
::**This is a counter-argument to point one | |||
::**this is another counter-argument to point one | |||
::**this is a third counter-argument to point one | |||
::***this is a counter argument to the third counter-argument | |||
::*This is point two | |||
::**This is a counter-argument to point two | |||
::**this is another counter-argument to point two | |||
::**this is a third counter-argument to point two | |||
: With the bullet point version, you can tell easily where each counter argument begins and ends. And for people confusing them with being main discontinuities, that's why they are also indented. I'll tell you what. I'll create a couple of user pages to show you the difference between the two versions using the Cold Blood page. [[User:The Thirteenth Doctor|The Thirteenth Doctor]] 15:12, June 1, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::What about using numbering? There's a reason outlines (and ToCs and similar things) use that format--when things get complicated, it's much easier to find 3Dib after 3Ciia than to look for the first thing outdented two steps, with or without bullets. Although I don't know if this wiki software can do this; the # just gives you numbers, like this: | |||
::#This is point one | |||
::##This is a counter-argument to point one | |||
::##this is another counter-argument to point one | |||
::##this is a third counter-argument to point one | |||
::###this is a counter argument to the third counter-argument | |||
::#This is point two | |||
::##This is a counter-argument to point two | |||
::##this is another counter-argument to point two | |||
::##this is a third counter-argument to point two | |||
::But, even if that's not as good as a real outline, it's still better than a bullet. If I know I'm looking for top-level #2 instead of #1-#4, seeing a 2 instead of a 4 immediately tells me I'm looking in the right place. --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 02:58, June 2, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Yeah, I think that's good too. I just think that each point should be individually identifiable. [[User:The Thirteenth Doctor|The Thirteenth Doctor]] 12:20, June 2, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, that likely be useful as long as we can make sure everyone follows this system. Rather than going with how talk pages are formatted and indented correctly. (The report writer in me though does say 'counter argument to point 2 should be labelled 2.1, but then that's me obsessing over tiny details). | |||
:::The only issue I have is rolling it out to the 500+ articles some of which have variable formatting which may hamper any automatic change over to this format. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:59, June 2, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::[[User:The Thirteenth Doctor/proposed Discontinuity formatting|Here]] is the altered page, and you can compare it with the [[[[Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/Cold Blood|present page.]] What do you think?--[[User:The Thirteenth Doctor|The Thirteenth Doctor]] 20:25, June 2, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::I agree 100% that it should be "2.1" or "2A" or something similar (as I said, "outline format"). The problem is this wiki doesn't seem to have any way of doing that automatically. And I'm not sure we can expect people to do the numbering manually. It's pretty obvious to me that if I'm writing the first reply to 2.3, it should be 2.3.1--but is it going to be obvious to everyone else? --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 12:16, June 3, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::No, you're right it's not going to be obvious to everyone else. That's also my primary concern in switching over to the number system. | |||
::::::Though just thinking on it from a different angle, what about having a horizontal line (<nowiki>----</nowiki>) between each of the discontinuity points? --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 12:24, June 3, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Will average editors know how to add a horizontal line? Especially people using the RTE (who I suspect are the ones screwing up the formatting in the first place)? | |||
:::::::Also, Cold Blood is a bit of an atypical example; there are many other pages with dozens of one-line questions and a one-liner answer to each; adding horizontal lines would make those pages 50% longer, and probably harder to read rather than easier. | |||
:::::::Maybe that's part of the answer--have a simple system and a complex systeem, and it can be a judgment call when the page needs to be changed over? That would also solve the "rolling it out to 500+ pages" issue.... --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 12:33, June 3, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Isn't that our issues at the moment? The current system isn't perfect but everyone knows how to use it (more or less) and it's used on the active pages. The active pages are the ones we need to implement a complicated system on to make them less messy. But the only pages that a complicated system would work on are the ones that ''aren't'' active. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 12:31, June 7, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I think the real issue is that people _don't_ know how to use it, but it only really matters on the active pages. Although that's just as good an argument against my idea, come to think of it--if people can't even figure out how to indent things, what are the changes they're going to figure out how to maintain an outline numbering system? --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 02:55, June 9, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::I honestly can't see the problem. The present system is ''perfectly'' adequate for a '''forum page'''. We don't need to change it, especially if such a change would obligate us to go back and change the hundreds of extant pages. If we introduce a more complicated "format", it'll only hinder the discussion. We want to keep it as simple as it can possibly be. If it really bugs you that ''Cold Blood'' is a bit confusing, just go back and edit it to the proper level of indentation. Personally, I really wouldn't bother because, again, '''these are forum pages, not mainspace article pages'''. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 20:37, June 17, 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Archivist's notes== | |||
This discussion resulted in the creation of [[Forum:Discontinuity index]]. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}20:24: Wed 05 Oct 2011 </span> | |||