Forum:Timeline sections on pages

Index → Panopticon → Timeline sections on pages

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

Can we decide upon a general rule for what should be included in the 'timeline' section on story articles. By this, I do not mean what type of information we should include but who we include.

If you look at Let's Kill Hitler. The timeline section on that page includes: The Doctor, Amy, Rory, River. Young Amy and Young Rory. Doomsday includes: The Doctor, Rose, Mickey, Jackie, Daleks and the Cybermen.

Are all these really that necessary? Would it not be easier just to have one timeline - which should be for the Doctor (or the main character of the story).

We really don't need to have five or six different timelines for characters in a story, when it is obvious what story happens next for them (for example Rose timeline on Doomsdays, states her next story is Turn Left. Do we need to say this when it is so obvious?)

I propose we rethink the timeline section and what we include in them. I think th best way forward is to just simple include the 'main character' (i.e The Doctor, Sarah Jane, Torchwood). The only exception for this I think would Journey's End, where when we have all three of them on the page. MM/Want to talk? 22:39, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

I say get rid of the Timeline section entirely. Instead have a little box like the {{discontinuity}} box that would sit in the Continuity or Notes section that says "If you'd like to see when different characters experienced this story check out the Forum:Timey-wimey detector for greater information on continuity and time placement".

At least on that forum there is reasoning given for the placement of the stories, in the Timeline sections (some/few) have the reasoning for their placement but most are just added without any further information. Reading the Timeline article sections I'm often left wondering why they've been placed as they are and it's only by going to the Time-wimey detector do I actually get an answer. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:00, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely think we should get rid of them. They are merely an extension of the old, pre-forum timeline pages. Logically, if we got rid of those pages, we should get rid of the detritus they've left behind.

We might want to consider, however, whether we'll allow them to be readied, so long as some sort of rationale is given. There are valid timeline notes to be made at, say, The Greatest Show in the Galaxy. There, it would be important and fairly uncontroversial to note that, though the story was broadcast last, it must occur earlier in the season, due to the jewellery that Ace receives in the story and displays in an "earlier" story.

I don't, however, think that the timeline section should be a regular feature of story pages. It should just be an occasional one, employed only when there's something to say.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 15:12: Sun 26 Aug 2012 

It is basically leftovers from before the Timelines being a forum section. I think that we should nuke the sections, then decide from scratch where to readd them. Not sure if a story which features, say, the Tenth Doctor and Donna with no obvious clues other than "this story must be after Donna joins, but before she leaves" is worth noting.

I agree that it should not be a regular feature on every story page, especially as there's plenty of stories we haven't even definitively placed in the Timeline forums, yet still have a timeline section. -- Tybort (talk page) 17:10, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

That said, not everyone will know everything about Doctor Who, even the 2005 revival, so I object to the removal of "Doomsday takes place for Rose before Turn Left" simply because many people think it's the bleeding obvious. -- Tybort (talk page) 17:13, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they should be re-added, ever.

In CzechOut's example I think that information can simply go in the "Story notes" section. I don't think we need to burden the story pages with an extra sub-section for these rare instances. Adding the information is fine, but I don't think we need a separate sub-section just for it. Having it on some pages would indicate to people that it should be on all pages (we've all seen editors do that).

Tybort, for those instances where we want to state the connectedness of stories, that information can go in "Continuity". --Tangerineduel / talk 07:12, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

If you think it better to completely eliminate the Timeline section, I've no objection. It makes the bot work — and let's face it, this is gonna require a bot — a lot easier. I can just run it on automatic if the idea is that we want to fully exterminate the section.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 00:07: Tue 28 Aug 2012 

Fire away. I don't have any real objections. -- Tybort (talk page) 00:28, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Remove them.

Should we wait for any amount of time or just go ahead with the removal? --Tangerineduel / talk 14:35, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Actually I like the timeline sections. I'm sure a lot of people would like to know the general "when" of a story in relation to other stories. I'd rather we not get rid of them. Shambala108 ☎ 17:14, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll expand on my thoughts. I'm in favour of wiping the current Timeline sections, as even if we do re-establish them shortly after, we need a "general when", not a (I assume) Doctor Who Reference Guide-centric approach with an implausibly definitive chronology. Personally, I think even to achieve that, we should still do a clean wipe first. Also, as I said, I'm against "this Donna story must be after Donna joins, but before she leaves", as that really doesn't do anything. -- Tybort (talk page) 18:16, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Wipe them. After seeing it on Pond Life, the section needs wiped. It doesn't work on Pond Life, nor any where else for that matter. I'm vote to wipe the entire section of all pages then add links to the Forum:Timey-wimey detector as User:Tangerineduel says and also, as User:CzechOut states, only add the section if there is something to say. MM/Want to talk? 00:50, August 29, 2012 (UTC)