Forum:Eleventh Doctor headings

Index → Panopticon → Eleventh Doctor headings

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

I think we need to look at having silly names in articles. Where most of the Doctors have proper titles for their adventures, just look at the Eleventh's page and even to an extent the Tenths. They have these silly names for sections with no need for them. I mean, in the Tenth's page, his travels with each companion are in one section, but with the Eleventh's, his travels with his one companion are split into episodes, each with silly titles. I think we should do away with all these silly titles. We can keep headings for each companions era etc, but these silly titles really don't have a place in the article, especially if they are supposed to be in-universe. The Thirteenth Doctor 15:21, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

This discussion would appear closed as the The Thirteenth Doctor and Zythe have unilaterally made the changes without submitting to discussion here. For what it's worth, there wasn't anything "out of universe" about the subheads. You might not have liked them, stylistically, but they didn't fall into OOU territory, as far as I could make out. They didn't, however, obey Tardis:Manual of Style#Headings. I, for one, don't mind "non-standard headings" because individuals are individuals. They don't all give us the same info about themselves.

No, to me, the problem with this article is something that'll probably get corrected as the "sheen" falls away from the Eleventh Doctor. It's just way overlong. The tendency now is to write up a huge amount on every single adventure, and I think that'll probably get trimmed down as time passes. You could rewrite that whole bio in no more than three paragaphs, really. I mean, in theory, the Eleventh's bio should currently be about the same as the Ninth's, and roughly one-seventh as long as the Fourth's. There's just way, way too much detail there now.

But "silly subheads"? Nah, that didn't particularly exist. Interesting, perhaps. Ones that would cause you to read further, maybe. But not silly. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:57, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I think that perhaps you should check your history before you accuse people of things. I didn't remove them at all. I was waiting for the discussion to be had. --The Thirteenth Doctor 17:25, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

There we go, the subheading from the TOA episode has gone from being "Angels and Demons" to "A Deadly Demon" to "A Demon of Stone". The Thirteenth Doctor 20:53, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Now there's "Vincent and the Doctor" changed to "Face to Face with a Mad Man" to "2 Gingers and a Doctor". It's really silly. The Thirteenth Doctor 15:23, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Everything (aside from the Behind the scenes section) should be in-universe.

Both the Tenth and Eleventh Doctor articles need trimming and with it a title change will likely come.

The Eleventh Doctor ones are somewhat silly, or trying too hard to make a series of puns. The information should dictate the titles, but in the mean time I think we should aim for a not-silly tone, serious with some playfullness. The article is about presenting information, but it should also make people want to read it. --Tangerineduel 14:23, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good balance to strike, TD.

As for 13D's assertion that I didn't check the revision history of the article, I'd note that this thread was created at 0521 on 1 July 2010. At 0542 on 1 July 2010 at Eleventh Doctor, Zythe made two edits, with the edit summary of "Rmv silly sub sections per 13th Doctor". 13D then made a 3d edit at 0621, which failed to revert what Zythe had done. At the time I first posted to this thread, 0657, Eleventh Doctor had no "silly subheads", thanks to these three edits. I had to use the revision history to see what the heck 13D was talking about. So 13D is thus being a li'l disingenuous when he says he was "waiting" for the discussion to be had. Maybe he didn't physically remove the subheads himself, but he knew they were gone before this thread had a lick of discussion in it. As a courtesy to those who use the forum, discussion would be facilitated if the problem actually existed in the then-current revision. I guess what I'm really saying is that, once you knew the article had been changed to the point of eliminating the issue of interest, you should've posted a link here to the revision history with the problem you were reporting, or, better still, you should've reverted Zythe's edits, citing an active discussion in the forum. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 05:29, July 18, 2010 (UTC)