Talk:London

Split by century

The London page in its current form is huge, and yet only contains a fraction of the information available on the subject within the DWU. I propose that - where we have enough information available - we split London by centuries; for example, we already have enough information on the page to create separate pages for 19th century London, 20th century London and 21st century London. This would allow us to go into more detail on the geography, culture and history of London within each of these time periods. It would also help to alleviate some of the problems of the page in its current form. London would still remain, but as a broad overview of London throughout time. The smaller details would go on relevant century pages. I've created a basic mock-up for how such a page might appear for 19th century London at User:66 Seconds/Sandbox 6. Please let me know your thoughts. 66 Seconds ☎ 16:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be sense; I suppose it would be akin to Time Lord incarnation pages. A navigation template or something of the sort would perhaps be wise. Aquanafrahudy 📢 16:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. Although wouldn’t it make more sense to use terms such as Victorian London and the like, rather than millennia? Danniesen ☎ 16:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case, what would we call a theoretical 21st century London, then? Aquanafrahudy 📢 16:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I like this and support naming the pages by century such as 19th century London. Bongo50 ☎ 16:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with doing this split, and the proposed naming scheme (with redirects from Victorian London ect, ofc). Cousin Ettolrahc ☎ 16:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding a navigation template, it should be possible to make something with {{navfobox}}. Bongo50 ☎ 17:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Glad to see support for this. A redirect from Victorian London to 19th century London is a good idea, as is a navigation template. If there's nobody against, I'll make a start on the pages. 66 Seconds ☎ 14:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Should we edit {{London counterparts}}, do you think, or make a new template? Aquanafrahudy 📢 18:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd say a new template as the proposed new pages are not counterparts in the way we use the term. Bongo50 ☎ 19:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I meant should the template be expanded to be a London navfobox in general, or should we start a new template, because it would be a bit odd to have two navfoboxes on the same page. Aquanafrahudy 📢 19:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Lots of pages have both a counterparts template and another navfobox, such as Eighth Doctor. Bongo50 ☎ 19:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Corrie's comments about how I hop into every discussion have led me to this one - a conversation which I haven't yet participated in. I actually have some thoughts here. I think this is a decent base idea, but could use some changes. Part of the issue with the page as it stands is that it just lists off stories that happen to take place in London. These could easily be shunted off to the pages discussed. I don't think that London the page should be quite as minor as suggested here though. It should be a repository for stories/ information that are about London, the place, or significantly impact it, in any century. This info can also be replicated on the various century pages, of course. But if, for instance, we have a random story that just happens to take place in London (say, Rose), there's no reason to have it on this page. (This demarcation will have to be fleshed out a bit, since something like WWIII could be considered as happening "to London", or just "in London".) Najawin ☎ 21:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the navfobox, I would agree that it should be separate to {{London counterparts}}, for similar reasons to those stated by Bongolium above. Furthermore, I understand it was recently discussed that the counterparts templates would move over to the "Other realities" subpages where applicable, so as not to clutter the main page, as is the case here, so I think there's room for both.

As for Najawin's comment, I think I agree. I don't want London as a page to become insignificant; it should basically tie all the century pages together. There are things which should be replicated across more than one page. For example, I would expect the London Blitz to have some coverage on both 20th century London and London. I would agree that the events of Rose were relatively minor and would have no reason to be there. On the other hand, I would expect the Slitheen invasion to be covered on both 21st century London and London, mainly due to the lasting damage it had on London landmarks such as Big Ben and Downing Street. Basically, anything with lasting ramifications for the city (events that happen to London rather than just in London as Najawin phrased it) should be mentioned on the main London page. On the other hand, something totally minor such as "in 1819, the investigative reporter Thomas Tyler worked for a London newspaper", would be covered only on 19th century London and would have no reason to be on the main page. I hope that makes sense. 66 Seconds ☎ 22:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Now the question is how many different pages should there be? We have the obvious ones; 19th, 20th and 21st, but should there be others than those three? Danniesen ☎ 23:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Should the Eleven Day Empire be on the navfobox, as it's technically a period of time?

In reply to Danniesen, I think that we could have a page for seventeenth century London, due to it being an important place for Faction Paradox? Although it might not be necessary because of Eleven Day Empire? Or maybe we should only use quantity of stories set there? I'm not sure. I think we could also have one for sixteenth century London due to how many stories feature Shakespeare, but I don't necessarily think it's a good idea. Aquanafrahudy 📢 06:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

lmao, we're just revisiting Czech's old decision that made everyone upset at the end of the 2016 FP thread. (Also, we probably should have had a forum thread before making the century!London pages, as it's a change to the wiki that involves multiple pages.) Najawin ☎ 06:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

While I support the existence of these pages, I have a good few issues.

Firstly, surely, these would be better off as subpages?

Secondly, I am confused as to how these sorts of pages are being classified. On the pages currently, they're being treated as locations; but a time period isn't a spatial location (unless if you wanna get a bit FP-y). We ought to categorise these as time periods, so we should put them in something like Category:London time periods or something and leave the Category:Cities visited by the First Doctor-type categories on London.

Thirdly, oh Jesus Christ on a bike the citations. More of a general issue I have with the Wiki but one I want to prevent going forward: can we push forward in implementing {{cite source}} please, and also remember T:NPOV? (Or whatever is the most applicable policy here.) For example, many event pages (e.g. those pages that cover a particular alien invasion seen initially in a television serial or episode) are using the names introduced for them in later sources, but those sources aren't being cited. So we've got claims such as:

the Battle of Canary Wharf, (TV: Doomsday)

When Doomsday, AFAIK, didn't ever use that name; the correct claim would be either

the conflict between the Daleks and the Cybermen, (TV: Doomsday)

Or

the Battle of Canary Wharf, (TV: Doomsday, PROSE: The Time Traveller's Almanac)

Let's not propagate the same issue that plagues N-Space!

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

17:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

What's citations got to do with it? Is it that people aren't using Cite Source? Aquanafrahudy 📢 19:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Epsilon is saying that people are citing things to sources that don't quite imply what they're being used for. Many stories don't use the name "N-Space", but we use it nevertheless, and then don't make it clear that we're translating a different term used by that story through some other filter given to us by another source to then write our wiki article. In particular, "The Battle of Canary Wharf" isn't really used IU except in a very few specific locations. Everywhere else its unnamed. So if we refer to it as that, we need to explain to people why the thing we're discussing in Doomsday is called this, since the term never appears in Doomsday. (And I believe he's suggesting the template is good here because it gives a page number in TTA.) Najawin ☎ 20:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding these pages being subpages, I am strongly against. See Tardis:Subpage policy#When not to use a subpage. I would definetly say that these are "self-contained idea that other articles might want to reference as well" and so should not be subpages. Bongo50 ☎ 21:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm also against these being subpages for the same reason. As for the categorisation of such pages mentioned by Epsilon, I don't have a strong opinion either way. They are more temporal locations than spatial ones. I personally quite like Category:Cities visited by the First Doctor and similar, as we are then able to see which Doctors have visited London in which centuries. However, I understand how that might clutter the category somewhat. As for Danniesen's question about how many pages there should be, I think it should really just come down to whether there is enough information to warrant such a page. If we have enough information for a century to be split by decade, then I think that is a good indicator for when a century warrants its own page. 66 Seconds ☎ 11:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)