Forum:Home Era

Index → Panopticon → Home Era

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

Original discussion

You know, I've noticed recently the changing of home era in the infoboxes to be century-specific rather than decade or year-specific. This is a more accurate usage for the label, I realize. However, in a few cases, we do seem to lose info by doing so. Specifically, just recently the Billy (Delta and the Bannermen) page was updated. And in this case, we lose what time he is from. I mean, when the character is contemporary to the show, it doesn't really matter. But in this case, now reading the article, I don't know that he isn't from the '80s when the episode aired (well, except his clothes). I feel like I've lost relevant information about the character. Or would have, if I hadn't seen the episode yet (certainly I hadn't when I first read the article shortly after discovering this site). I know I could get that info by looking at the episode article. But would it be okay or advisable to, when changing over the home-era to add a reference to the narrower range (or specific year) in the body of the article? I was thinking of trying to work the year into that article, is all. But I don't know if it's really wanted by anyone else. Tzigone 16:16, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed this, and I think we are loosing information in this change.

Surely era can mean specific periods like the '50s etc. Rather than just the century?

Wikitionary gives era as "A time period of indeterminate length, generally more than one year.". --Tangerineduel 16:22, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we couldn't just give a century, (millenium if necessessary) then if again possible, or just to make it more accurate add in brackets the decade (i.e '50's). I'd also be in favor for using (present day) for characters who are from present Earth- the majority of companions and spinoff cast etc. - I. Am. Excalibur-117-^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

But what about those who are born in say... the 40s and appear at different times throughout their lives. Do we put 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s etc? I feel the century option is the best and, in their biography, it can easily state the year. Take Ocean Waters for example, her biography states "In 1972...." and "In 2010..." which I think is a fine way of doing it. --The Thirteenth Doctor 16:52, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the current system works. I think a real problem is that we lack a definite view of what constitues a Home Era. Is it where they're born, or when we last saw them residing? Most of the characters were born in the 20th Century, but live through part of the 21st as well (we usually just say the latter, but sometimes both are used.)- I. Am. Excalibur-117-^{(talk • contribs)} 17:02, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I consider it when they live. Jack was born in the 51st century, so that's his home era. He travelled to many different eras, but never had a "home" as such there. But he actually lived and set up "home" in the 20th and 21st century, staying in those places by choice. If the Doctor had decided to stay on Earth for the entire 21st century, setting up a home, we'd probably consider it his home era as well. --The Thirteenth Doctor 17:06, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I changed a number of pages in this way as a characters life likely lasted longer than a decade and in some cases I've seen specific years in the info box. This was the case with a number of pages related to The Romans i.e. Nero. Maybe a century is too long though.--Skittles the hog 17:08, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

A possible solution could be to list the era they were born in, as well as the one they currently reside wherever possible. For example(just watched VoS, first that came to mind) Rani Chandra : Home Era: 20th Century(Born), 21st Century(Current). Everyones happy, and it allows for the most accuracy and personal intrepretation. - I. Am. Excalibur-117-^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Bit of an overload in an already cramped infobox.--Skittles the hog 17:28, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Stay with the current system I think, the infobox is meant as a summary of the article, so to assuage Tzigone's concerns I think it's the writing of the article that needs to be looked at, rather than the infobox. Perhaps the lead sentence or so in articles should specify when an individual lived / was active.

Would it make it clearer to change the Home era section of the infobox from "Home Era" to "Era active"? --Tangerineduel 12:41, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

That'd work too.- I. Am. Excalibur-117-^{(talk • contribs)} 15:23, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Revisited

Recently, myself and Skittles have come to blows over what a person 'Home Era' is. I said that it was an era an individual considered their home/ the Era we see a person in (i.e Andy Davidson was only seen in stories set in the 21st century, so his home era would be the 21st century.)(basically how it is now). Skittles, though it depended on their age, and that all characters over that are over a certain age (i.e 2008 = over 8 years old) their home era would be the 21st century as well as the 20th century. So basically, what is a person's home era? What should a person home era be? Mini-mitch\talk 22:16, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I've had this same discussion with respect to the categories, like category:20th century individuals. Personally, I think the whole exercise of dating someone by a range of years is futile and should be abandoned so we can get on to more important work. An infobox should be for stone-cold solid information. If there's a field which produces consternation, like this one most certainly does, the answer is simply to remove it. Like TD says above, the burden is on the article itself, really.

I'm for the elimination of the line in the infobox, and, frankly, for the utter destruction of the "nth century individuals" categories, too. It's a bloody waste of time which at the end of the day produces nothing of value. "Home era" means nothing in a universe where time travel is the central conceit.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

Actually, "home era" means nothing in the real world, either. What would you call your "home era"? Having a hard time with that? Do you in any way use that phrase in common speech? Exactly. Get rid of it. It's stupid.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

Reading your comment, I agree. It's very difficult to come up with what someone's home era actually is, and time travel makes the matter even more confusing. People consider different dates to be their home era. I agree 100% with you about deleting the categories and the line in the infobox. Mini-mitch\talk 11:46, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of line in the infobox.

I agree in principle with getting rid of the Cat:Nth century individuals (it just mildly annoys me that several hundred articles will end up back in the Cat:Individuals category). Though I'm sure some other sub-categories can be dreamt up! --Tangerineduel / talk 14:04, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Locking at infoboxes from other wikis, there are quite a few sections we could add, such as: loyalty, family, age, title, status to name a few. But if we were to put a new section into the infobox, it should not be done until we decide what to do with Home Era. Mini-mitch\talk 16:11, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how this jumped from a duplicated word to "remove the line" but okay, it sounds good.Skittles the hog--Talk 18:09, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Less than a quarter of the individuals the Doctor meets are time travellers. The time travellers he does meet usually aren't wandering the universe like cosmic hobos. Time Lords and Time Agents (while there was an agency) generally have a fixed point in space and time which they return to. In The War Games, a Time Lord says to Jamie and Zoe that "We're going to send you home, back to your own world and your own time." Jamie moved out of linear time for a while but let's see who his contemporaries were.

"Do you in any way use that phrase in common speech?" I have never had to introduce myself to someone from another planet much less someone from the 51st century or from the 15th century. All of these example categories are small enough that they don't need to be organised like Wikipedia:Category:20th-century people.

"Hello, William Shakespeare. I've spent a week here but my home era is the 21st century."
"I'm Grant Morrison from Earth. I came here because my former editor, Tharg the Mighty, told me about a great job in the Betelgeuse system where William S. Burroughs is worshipped as a god."

What was the original topic again? --Nyktimos 05:38, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

SO i take it you'r against the deletion of the categories? Also, I was pondering whether to put the deletion tag on the 'x century individuals' pages, but I did not, as I though it would be better for a decision to come here. My plan was to direct people to this forums to voice their opinion when they see the deletion tag. Also, since there are quite a few of these page, it would have taken a lot of time. - which I must also ask, CzechOut, if we were to delete these categories, would your bot be able to do it, an remove the line from the infobox? Mini-mitch\talk 16:33, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit on the fence. I agree that the vast majority are not time-travellers. However, some characters cannot be defined in this way.--Skittles the hog--Talk 17:13, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

The bot's not required to remove the line from the infobox. That's the beauty of a template. If you don't want the line displayed, you just snip the line from the template and it disappears from every page on the site. Basically:

• time to get rid of the line: 5 secs
• time to hand edit the field on every page to the way you want it: ? days

As for categories, the bot would be able to do it simply. It would take a little while, even for the bot, though, just because there are so many affected pages. But yeah, it's dead simple to define a category and say to the bot, "Go, wipe this category from every page in the category." Of course, if there are any pages solely defined by an "nth century" cat, then they will suddenly become uncategorized. I don't know how many pages this will mean without doing it, though.

I think my point about "home era" being a part of natural speech has been misconstrued a bit. Obviously, the DWU is a fictional universe and things that happen within it wouldn't be things that happen to us. So, no, none of us are going to be introducing ourselves to aliens from the 32nd century, or the like, by saying "My home era is the 21st century". But because it also doesn't really occur in DWU stories, it's hard to justify the term. It's one that we have wholly invented on this site in an effort to put some kind of timestamp on an individual.

As for the categories, the thing we have to remember is that since DW only began transmission in about the last third of the 20th century, the vast majority of its characters in stories set in the "current day" are people who probably existed in the 20th and 21st centuries, but we don't know for sure. I mean, we've seen the Brig in both the 20th and 21st centuries, but can we assume Benton's in both centuries? Or some of the lesser UNIT flunkies? Do we really know that Mel made it to the 21st century? And which version of Ace do we assume to be the "correct", categorizable one? The one who ended up going to Gallifrey to be a Time Lady, or the one who died in DWM? Did either actually make it to the 21st century? She was young enough to, but did she? And what about all those much more minor characters? Take all the kids around the table in The Empty Child. They're certainly young enough to make it to the 21st century. Did they? Did the DWU's Queen Victoria make it to the same age she did in the real world? Can we safely put her in the 20th century cat? So we get into these little arguments from time to time, where we say, "Well if character X was 11 years old, and it's 2004, then he must be both 20th and 21st centuries." And then someone else pops up and says, "Ahhh, but if it's not actually in the canon, we shouldn't assume. He might've actually been born in 2060 and then transplanted to 2004 at the age of 11." We've gone round and round on this one several times. And the truth is, we just don't know for most of them. As long as we allow this kind of category, we're going to have editors who say — quite rightly in my view — "well, because they're XX years old and the story is set in YYYY then they must be in both ZZth and AAth centuries." And then the argument will flare again a year from now. We should always consider carefully anything we construct on the site that makes logic an enemy of canon.

So let's just stop the cycle of discussion/confusion by just removing the cat altogether. Even when you look at wikipedia's 20th century individuals categories, it's clear that they're far from exhaustive. Most of those subcats have less than 50 pages. On Wikipedia. A site whose collection of pages on 20th century people is, I would wager, close to the total number of article pages on our site. Some of the biggest figures of the 20th century aren't in 20th century individuals pages on Wikipedia.

And there's a very good reason for that: at the end of the day, the century in which a person lives is just not something that meaningfully identifies them.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

I'm fine with deletion of the categories and the infobox section. The main biography should be stating the years in which certain events happened to an individual anyway. However, isn't the infobox supposed to be a quick summary of the character's page? Because even if we remove "home era", I think something such as "Year/Era Born" should be put in, but only if we know it for certain. --The Thirteenth Doctor 14:02, February 17, 2011 (UTC)