Talk:2011

Miracle Day Timeline

I think the cellphone said March only because that was the real-world date when the message was sent during filming, not that the Miracle is intended to have happened in March. It makes far more sense for it to have happened in the summer before "Let's Kill Hitler". -- Noneofyourbusiness 21:14, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

• However, we have no evidence to contradict the date. As it stands, the March 14-22 dates are correct. d ●●● 21:20, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks to User:Hammard, we now have contradictory evidence from Rex's cellphone. The date given on it is 2011.09.09, meaning September 9, 2011, the date that "The Blood Line" was aired. Since the episodes were filmed in the beginning of the year, the September date can only be there as a result of deliberate continuity, whereas the March is the filming date. See this picture: 13:30, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
    • How is this contradictory? The series still can start in late March / early April. The "two months later" goes to June, and perhaps a CIA investigation prevents a funeral for Esther until September. We can't just ignore one on-screen date in favor of another on-screen date. d ●●● 16:01, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Er, can someone who knows these things tell me if Rex's cellphone would be giving the date Rex accessed Noah's files or the date Noah's trace was used to find Charlotte's cellphone, since I'm not 100% clear on that? -- Noneofyourbusiness 14:09, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, more evidence for the March dates, when Andy talks to Gwen about her father, he had his first (mild) heart attack on Saturday, then a severe one on Sunday. March 20, 2011 being a Sunday (and being two days before the March 22 date on Rex's cellphone) adds a large amount of credence to the March dates over the September dates. (In particular, consider just how hot the Los Angeles area would be in the thick of summer if the series took place in June/July from the get-go.) d ●●● 19:33, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

• Also, early on, Oprah wants Oswald Danes on her show. However, her show ended in May 2011. Therefore, Miracle Day must have been before May. d ●●● 20:15, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
• Only in our universe. For all we know, Oprah could have decided to retire at a different point in the Doctor Who universe. -- Tybort (talk page) 21:04, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, though at this point there is certainly more evidence to suggest March over September. A single instance does not outdo a half dozen others. d ●●● 21:16, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
  • The Brigadier's wife died in July 2011, so the miracle must have started after that or ended before.

Let's Kill Hitler

Re: "waiting all summer", I'm not sure if the dates of Let's Kill Hitler would be the beginning of the autumn or not. What time would the crops that Amy wrote that message in start to decay? -- Tybort (talk page) 19:20, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

You mean the message decaying? The Doctor got the paper from the next day. If you mean the crops themselves decaying, I'm sure that's not an issue. P.S. Sorry, I thought "Fall" was the British term and "Autumn" the American. Hard to keep straight. -- Noneofyourbusiness 02:02, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Miracle Day Setting

Why does it say that the Miracle started in July when Rendition was set on 22nd March? --MrThermomanPreacher 23:16, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

SJA Series 5

What is the evidence for placing SJA series 5 as happening in May - August? --Borisashton ☎ 22:05, March 8, 2018 (UTC)

In answer to my own question the SJA stuff was originally in a section entitled Spring/Summer but during a revamp of the page it was moved (quite rightly with lack of evidence) to May - August. However, in Sky we see that the tax disc expires on 31 March that year. Therefore placing Sky between 1 January and 30 March and the other two episodes soon afterwards. Accordingly I have moved the SJA stuff to the January - April section instead. --Borisashton ☎ 23:06, March 8, 2018 (UTC)

Too many pictures?

Does anyone else think the January - April section has too many images? To me at least, they disrupt the flow of the article. I feel like we could stand to get rid of at least three of them.LauraBatham ☎ 14:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hm, personally I find it fairly pleasing, actually, this highly illustrated one-image-per-paragraph look. It's unadvisable for long pages because it makes the loading time greater, but I don't really follow this matter of "disrupting the flow of the article". Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

User:LauraBatham is right. There are too many images, and it's not like they illustrate the concept of 2011, they're just things that happened in 2011. A long time ago a user added images to the years pages and I allowed it, but obviously in some cases it has gone overboard. And the general idea of this wiki is that we want everyone to use the wiki (not necessarily edit) and that means accommodating every user, including those with slow-loading internet connections or mobile screens. This (and every wiki) is aimed at more than just the people who edit, it's aimed at anyone and everyone who might want to use such a resource. So the argument, "Well I don't have a problem with load time", isn't valid here. And of course it is policy to only have at most one image per section. So removing three of the images now. Shambala108 ☎ 23:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually more than three. Shambala108 ☎ 23:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

With due respect, @Shambala108, at no point did I use the old "Well I don't have a problem with load time" argument. What I said was that since this is a relatively small page, even someone with a slow connection shouldn't have any trouble if we let in more than one image per section. The only point where I mentioned my own experience was in regards to the aesthetic concern of whether it "disrupted the flow of the article". There my opinion is that it does not — that assuming loading time were no concern, the images would not be in and of themselves harmful to the reading experience, but rather enhance it.

Also, I'm fairly sure that this "only one image per section" business is only policy for long pages were loading time could be an issue — not for all pages on the Wiki. Of course, I'll defer to precedent if the opposite was established by some past discussion that has slipped my mind. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

One of the most common arguments against the policy has been "I don't have a problem with load time". As I have been doing for the last eight years as admin, I address my comments to anyone who might be reading, and for future reference, not just the participants in the current discussion. And as an experienced admin, I know that basically saying "we should only enforce this policy for certain pages but not all" is extremely hard to enforce or even determine which should and shouldn't. One of the overriding factors of policy on this wiki is consistency, because it's much easier for a small admin team to enforce. Shambala108 ☎ 00:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

On the first part: fair enough, but it would be helpful, I think, to be clear about this. When stating policy for the record, myself, I usually preface it with exactly that: "For the record", or some other modifier that makes it clear to the people in the conversation that they themselves are not being accused of misunderstanding the policy.

On the second: having a policy that only pertains to certain page is not the same thing as "only enforcing a policy for certain pages". In fact there is already a precedent for a policy that applies only to Special:LongPages, one you established yourself in the Forums a relatively short time ago: the one about having only a couple of sentences per story on pages like TV Doctors, long-running companions, and The Master. If we can enforce this, we can enforce the pictures thing in the exact same way.

And should the admin team still prove too "small" for this, surely the answer is to nominate more admins, rather than make the Wiki worse and worse by removing pictures that wouldn't actually be bothering anyone. But I don't even think that's necessary; I think we're doing a pretty good job as it is, as far as image policies go, in no small part thanks to you (but I'd like to think I do my part also). Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

To address Scrooge's curiosity about my "disrupting the flow of the article" comment, my main issue was having so many images so close together meant that the paragraphs kept starting at different points across the page in quick succession, which I found to be annoying. But maybe that's just me, hence why I wanted other people's opinions. My biggest concern however was the two images from the Impossible Astronaut, which were on exact opposites sides of the page with the paragraph squished in-between. It was not aesthetically pleasing at all. I should also point out that I am on desktop, so I don't know if that was an issue on mobile.LauraBatham ☎ 02:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That last problem at the very least is clearly undesirable, and a valid reason to include fewer pictures. I was merely worried about the unhealthy precedent of removing images on a normal-sized pages based purely on the alleged "one picture per section" rule; but if there are actual problems caused on this specific page by the proliferation of pictures I have no specific objections to their individual removal on this particular page, likewise. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 07:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)